lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v17 11/26] x86/mm: Update ptep_set_wrprotect() and pmdp_set_wrprotect() for transition from _PAGE_DIRTY to _PAGE_COW
From
Date
On 1/25/2021 10:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 01:30:38PM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:

[...]

>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index 666c25ab9564..1c84f1ba32b9 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -1226,6 +1226,32 @@ static inline pte_t ptep_get_and_clear_full(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
>> {
>> + /*
>> + * Some processors can start a write, but end up seeing a read-only
>> + * PTE by the time they get to the Dirty bit. In this case, they
>> + * will set the Dirty bit, leaving a read-only, Dirty PTE which
>> + * looks like a shadow stack PTE.
>> + *
>> + * However, this behavior has been improved
>
> Improved how?

Processors supporting Shadow Stack will not set a read-only PTE's dirty
bit. I will revise the comments.

>> and will not occur on
>> + * processors supporting Shadow Stack. Without this guarantee, a
>
> Which guarantee? That it won't happen on CPUs which support SHSTK?
>

Yes.

>> + * transition to a non-present PTE and flush the TLB would be
>
> s/flush the TLB/TLB flush/
>
>> + * needed.
>> + *
>> + * When changing a writable PTE to read-only and if the PTE has
>> + * _PAGE_DIRTY set, move that bit to _PAGE_COW so that the PTE is
>> + * not a shadow stack PTE.
>> + */
>
> This sentence doesn't belong here as it refers to what pte_wrprotect()
> does. You could expand the comment in pte_wrprotect() with this here as
> it is better.

I will move this paragraph to pte_wrprotect().

>
>> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) {
>> + pte_t old_pte, new_pte;
>> +
>> + do {
>> + old_pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep);
>> + new_pte = pte_wrprotect(old_pte);
>
> Maybe I'm missing something but those two can happen outside of the
> loop, no? Or is *ptep somehow changing concurrently while the loop is
> doing the CMPXCHG and you need to recreate it each time?
>
> IOW, you can generate upfront and do the empty loop...

*ptep can change concurrently.

>
>> +
>> + } while (!try_cmpxchg(&ptep->pte, &old_pte.pte, new_pte.pte));
>> +
>> + return;
>> + }
>> clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_RW, (unsigned long *)&ptep->pte);
>> }
>>

[...]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-01-25 22:32    [W:0.220 / U:1.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site