From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86/cet: User-mode shadow stack support Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 10:55:04 -0700 Message-ID: <67d8a813-b46a-d1da-3897-c38dd5b46b8e@linux.intel.com> References: <20180607143807.3611-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20180607143807.3611-2-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <1528393611.4636.70.camel@2b52.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1528393611.4636.70.camel@2b52.sc.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Yu-cheng Yu , Andy Lutomirski Cc: LKML , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM , linux-arch , X86 ML , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. J. Lu" , "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Jonathan Corbet , Oleg Nesterov , Arnd Bergmann , mike.kravetz@oracle.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 06/07/2018 10:46 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: >> Also, did you add all the needed checks to make get_user_pages(), >> access_process_vm(), etc fail when called on the shadow stack? (Or at >> least fail if they're requesting write access and the FORCE bit isn't >> set.) > Currently if FORCE bit is set, these functions can write to shadow > stack, otherwise write access will fail. I will test it. Is this a part of your selftests/ for this feature? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:54125 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934240AbeFGR40 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2018 13:56:26 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86/cet: User-mode shadow stack support References: <20180607143807.3611-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20180607143807.3611-2-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <1528393611.4636.70.camel@2b52.sc.intel.com> From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <67d8a813-b46a-d1da-3897-c38dd5b46b8e@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 10:55:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1528393611.4636.70.camel@2b52.sc.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Yu-cheng Yu , Andy Lutomirski Cc: LKML , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM , linux-arch , X86 ML , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. J. Lu" , "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Jonathan Corbet , Oleg Nesterov , Arnd Bergmann , mike.kravetz@oracle.com Message-ID: <20180607175504.B5Pm8QmNG7VczMR0opAPpYvR77XFJfeS737t3vsrxDc@z> On 06/07/2018 10:46 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: >> Also, did you add all the needed checks to make get_user_pages(), >> access_process_vm(), etc fail when called on the shadow stack? (Or at >> least fail if they're requesting write access and the FORCE bit isn't >> set.) > Currently if FORCE bit is set, these functions can write to shadow > stack, otherwise write access will fail. I will test it. Is this a part of your selftests/ for this feature?