lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[tip: x86/shstk] x86/mm: Warn if create Write=0,Dirty=1 with raw prot
The following commit has been merged into the x86/shstk branch of tip:

Commit-ID: 6ad563c4b42f64038456f838f3bd712acc95cbcb
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/6ad563c4b42f64038456f838f3bd712acc95cbcb
Author: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
AuthorDate: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 17:15:22 -07:00
Committer: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
CommitterDate: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:01:11 -07:00

x86/mm: Warn if create Write=0,Dirty=1 with raw prot

When user shadow stack is in use, Write=0,Dirty=1 is treated by the CPU as
shadow stack memory. So for shadow stack memory this bit combination is
valid, but when Dirty=1,Write=1 (conventionally writable) memory is being
write protected, the kernel has been taught to transition the Dirty=1
bit to SavedDirty=1, to avoid inadvertently creating shadow stack
memory. It does this inside pte_wrprotect() because it knows the PTE is
not intended to be a writable shadow stack entry, it is supposed to be
write protected.

However, when a PTE is created by a raw prot using mk_pte(), mk_pte()
can't know whether to adjust Dirty=1 to SavedDirty=1. It can't
distinguish between the caller intending to create a shadow stack PTE or
needing the SavedDirty shift.

The kernel has been updated to not do this, and so Write=0,Dirty=1
memory should only be created by the pte_mkfoo() helpers. Add a warning
to make sure no new mk_pte() start doing this, like, for example,
set_memory_rox() did.

Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@alien8.de>
Acked-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>
Tested-by: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
Tested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230319001535.23210-28-rick.p.edgecombe%40intel.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
index e5b3dce..7142f99 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -1032,7 +1032,15 @@ static inline unsigned long pmd_page_vaddr(pmd_t pmd)
* (Currently stuck as a macro because of indirect forward reference
* to linux/mm.h:page_to_nid())
*/
-#define mk_pte(page, pgprot) pfn_pte(page_to_pfn(page), (pgprot))
+#define mk_pte(page, pgprot) \
+({ \
+ pgprot_t __pgprot = pgprot; \
+ \
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_USER_SHSTK) && \
+ (pgprot_val(__pgprot) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_RW)) == \
+ _PAGE_DIRTY); \
+ pfn_pte(page_to_pfn(page), __pgprot); \
+})

static inline int pmd_bad(pmd_t pmd)
{
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 01:09    [W:0.026 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site