[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <067b890c-b879-4188-b428-cfadcc524630@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:30:15 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>,
"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Szabolcs.Nagy@....com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>,
"fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"vschneid@...hat.com" <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"kees@...nel.org" <kees@...nel.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v8 4/9] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 02:52:28PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-08-16 at 09:44 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > BTW, since it's the parent setting up the shadow stack in its own
> > address space before forking, I think at least the read can avoid
> > access_remote_vm() and we could do it earlier, even before the new
> > process is created.
> Hmm. Makes sense. It's a bit racy since the parent could consume that token from
> another thread, but it would be a race in any case.
So it sounds like we might be coming round to this? I've got a new
version that verifies the VM_SHADOW_STACK good to go but if we're going
to switch back to consuming the token in the parent context I may as
well do that. Like I said in the other mail I'd rather not flip flop
on this.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists