Re: [PATCH v5 18/39] mm: Handle faultless write upgrades for shstk

David Hildenbrand
2023-02-01T09:04:24Z

On 01.02.23 00:33, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-01-31 at 09:46 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Sure ...
>>
>> but I reconsidered :)
>>
>> Maybe there is a cleaner way to do it and avoid the "NULL" argument.
>>
>> What about having (while you're going over everything already):
>>
>> pte_mkwrite(pte, vma)
>> pte_mkwrite_kernel(pte)
>>
>> The latter would only be used in that arch code where we're working
>> on
>> kernel pgtables. We already have pte_offset_kernel() and
>> pte_alloc_kernel_track(), so it's not too weird.
>
> Hmm, one downside is the "mk" part might lead people to guess
> pte_mkwrite_kernel() would make it writable AND a kernel page (like
> U/S=0 on x86). Instead of being a mkwrite() that's useful for setting
> on kernel PTEs.

At least I wouldn't worry about that too much. We handle nowhere in
common code user vs. supervisor access that way explicitly (e.g.,
mkkernel), and it wouldn't even apply on architectures where we cannot
make such a decision on a per-PTE basis.

>
> The other problem is that one of NULL passers is not for kernel memory.
> huge_pte_mkwrite() calls pte_mkwrite(). Shadow stack memory can't be
> created with MAP_HUGETLB, so it is not needed. Using
> pte_mkwrite_kernel() would look weird in this case, but making
> huge_pte_mkwrite() take a VMA would be for no reason. Maybe making
> huge_pte_mkwrite() take a VMA is the better of those two options. Or
> keep the NULL semantics... Any thoughts?

Well, the reason would be consistency. From a core-mm point of view it
makes sense to handle this all consistency, even if the single user
(x86) wouldn't strictly require it right now.

I'd just pass in the VMA and call it a day :)

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb