lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 18/39] mm: Handle faultless write upgrades for shstk
On 23.01.23 21:47, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-01-23 at 10:50 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 19.01.23 22:22, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
>>> The x86 Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) feature includes
>>> a new
>>> type of memory called shadow stack. This shadow stack memory has
>>> some
>>> unusual properties, which requires some core mm changes to function
>>> properly.
>>>
>>> Since shadow stack memory can be changed from userspace, is both
>>> VM_SHADOW_STACK and VM_WRITE. But it should not be made
>>> conventionally
>>> writable (i.e. pte_mkwrite()). So some code that calls
>>> pte_mkwrite() needs
>>> to be adjusted.
>>>
>>> One such case is when memory is made writable without an actual
>>> write
>>> fault. This happens in some mprotect operations, and also prot_numa
>>> faults.
>>> In both cases code checks whether it should be made
>>> (conventionally)
>>> writable by calling vma_wants_manual_pte_write_upgrade().
>>>
>>> One way to fix this would be have code actually check if memory is
>>> also
>>> VM_SHADOW_STACK and in that case call pte_mkwrite_shstk(). But
>>> since
>>> most memory won't be shadow stack, just have simpler logic and skip
>>> this
>>> optimization by changing vma_wants_manual_pte_write_upgrade() to
>>> not
>>> return true for VM_SHADOW_STACK_MEMORY. This will simply handle all
>>> cases of this type.
>>>
>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>> Tested-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>
>>> Tested-by: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Instead of having these x86-shadow stack details all over the MM
>> space,
>> was the option explored to handle this more in arch specific code?
>>
>> IIUC, one way to get it working would be
>>
>> 1) Have a SW "shadowstack" PTE flag.
>> 2) Have an "SW-dirty" PTE flag, to store "dirty=1" when "write=0".
>
> I don't think that idea came up. So vma->vm_page_prot would have the SW
> shadow stack flag for VM_SHADOW_STACK, and pte_mkwrite() could do
> Write=0,Dirty=1 part. It seems like it should work.
>

Right, if we include it in vma->vm_page_prot, we'd immediately let
mk_pte() just handle that.

Otherwise, we'd have to refactor e.g., mk_pte() to consume a vma instead
of the vma->vm_page_prot. Let's see if we can avoid that for now.

>>
>> pte_mkwrite(), pte_write(), pte_dirty ... can then make decisions
>> based
>> on the "shadowstack" PTE flag and hide all these details from core-
>> mm.
>>
>> When mapping a shadowstack page (new page, migration, swapin, ...),
>> which can be obtained by looking at the VMA flags, the first thing
>> you'd
>> do is set the "shadowstack" PTE flag.
>
> I guess the downside is that it uses an extra software bit. But the
> other positive is that it's less error prone, so that someone writing
> core-mm code won't introduce a change that makes shadow stack VMAs
> Write=1 if they don't know to also check for VM_SHADOW_STACK.

Right. And I think this mimics the what I would have expected HW to
provide: a dedicated HW bit, not somehow mangling this into semantics of
existing bits.

Roughly speaking: if we abstract it that way and get all of the "how to
set it writable now?" out of core-MM, it not only is cleaner and less
error prone, it might even allow other architectures that implement
something comparable (e.g., using a dedicated HW bit) to actually reuse
some of that work. Otherwise most of that "shstk" is really just x86
specific ...

I guess the only cases we have to special case would be page pinning
code where pte_write() would indicate that the PTE is writable (well, it
is, just not by "ordinary CPU instruction" context directly): but you do
that already, so ... :)

Sorry for stumbling over that this late, I only started looking into
this when you CCed me on that one patch.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:54    [W:0.102 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site