linux-kernel - Re: PF_USER_WORKERs and shadow stack

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250813191441.GA26754@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 21:14:42 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PF_USER_WORKERs and shadow stack

On 08/13, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 8/13/25 09:28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > But it seems that if a features_enabled(ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK) thread creates a
> > PF_USER_WORKER thread, shstk_alloc_thread_stack() will allocate the shadow
> > stack for no reason.
>
> Is this costing us anything other than some CPU cycles and 160 bytes of
> memory for a VMA?

Well, I guess no, but I do have another reason for "something-like-this" cleanup.
I am working on other changes which should eliminate x86_task_fpu(PF_USER_WORKER).
Hopefully I'll send the patches tomorrow. To remind, see
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250812125700.GA11290@redhat.com/

So I'd like to ensure that ssp_active() can't return T in ssp_get().

And... Dave, I understand that it is very easy to criticize someone else's code ;)
But - if I am right - the current logic doesn't look clean to me. Regardless.

Oleg.