From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 16/27] mm: Modify can_follow_write_pte/pmd for
 shadow stack
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:37:43 -0700
Message-ID: <de510df6-7ea9-edc6-9c49-2f80f16472b4@linux.intel.com>
References: <20180710222639.8241-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <20180710222639.8241-17-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180710222639.8241-17-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 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 <arnd@arndb.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromiun.org>, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <pet>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> There are three possible shadow stack PTE settings:
> 
>   Normal SHSTK PTE: (R/O + DIRTY_HW)
>   SHSTK PTE COW'ed: (R/O + DIRTY_HW)
>   SHSTK PTE shared as R/O data: (R/O + DIRTY_SW)
> 
> Update can_follow_write_pte/pmd for the shadow stack.

First of all, thanks for the excellent patch headers.  It's nice to have
that reference every time even though it's repeated.

> -static inline bool can_follow_write_pte(pte_t pte, unsigned int flags)
> +static inline bool can_follow_write_pte(pte_t pte, unsigned int flags,
> +					bool shstk)
>  {
> +	bool pte_cowed = shstk ? is_shstk_pte(pte):pte_dirty(pte);
> +
>  	return pte_write(pte) ||
> -		((flags & FOLL_FORCE) && (flags & FOLL_COW) && pte_dirty(pte));
> +		((flags & FOLL_FORCE) && (flags & FOLL_COW) && pte_cowed);
>  }

Can we just pass the VMA in here?  This use is OK-ish, but I generally
detest true/false function arguments because you can't tell what they
are when they show up without a named variable.

But...  Why does this even matter?  Your own example showed that all
shadowstack PTEs have either DIRTY_HW or DIRTY_SW set, and pte_dirty()
checks both.

That makes this check seem a bit superfluous.