From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/27] x86/mm: Shadow stack page fault error checking Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:24:41 -0700 Message-ID: <175662bd-f979-ac5f-b78e-480608bdbf55@linux.intel.com> References: <20180710222639.8241-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20180710222639.8241-13-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180710222639.8241-13-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Yu-cheng Yu , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Andy Lutomirski , Balbir Singh , Cyrill Gorcunov , Florian Weimer , "H.J. Lu" , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Mike Kravetz , Nadav Amit , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek , Peter Zijlstra List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > + /* > + * Verify X86_PF_SHSTK is within a shadow stack VMA. > + * It is always an error if there is a shadow stack > + * fault outside a shadow stack VMA. > + */ > + if (error_code & X86_PF_SHSTK) { > + if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHSTK)) > + return 1; > + return 0; > + } It turns out that a X86_PF_SHSTK just means that the processor faulted while doing access to something it thinks should be a shadow-stack virtual address. But, we *can* have faults on shadow stack accesses for non-shadow-stack reasons. I think you need to remove the 'return 0' and let it fall through to the other access checks that we might be failing. If it's a shadow stack access, it has to be a shadow stack VMA. But, a shadow-stack access fault to a shadow stack VMA isn't _necessarily_ OK.