linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86/shstk: don't create the shadow stack for PF_USER

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: <20250815160023.GH11549@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 18:00:23 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86/shstk: don't create the shadow stack for
 PF_USER_WORKERs

On 08/15, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 05:43:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/15, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Sure, but OTOH at least for arm64 there's no cost to leaving the feature
> > > enabled unless you actually execute userspace code so if we never return
> > > to userspace writing the code to disable isn't really buying us anything.
>
> > The fact that a kernel thread can have the pointless ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK is
> > the only reason I know why x86_task_fpu(PF_USER_WORKER) has to work.
>
> > I'd like to make this logic consistent with PF_KTHREAD, and in the longer
> > term change the x86 FPU code so that the kernel threads can run without
> > without "struct fpu" attached to task_struct.
>
> OK, that's entirely x86 specific - there's no reason we'd want to do
> that for arm64.

Since I know nothing about arm64. Any reason we do want to have the unnecessary
ARCH_SHSTK_SHSTK/shstk on arm64?

And... do you agree that shstk_alloc_thread_stack() without update_fpu_shstk()
in copy_thread() path doesn't look right? Even if nothing really bad can happen.

Oleg.