From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "dietmar.eggemann@arm.com" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
"juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
"linux-api@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
"shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>,
"brauner@kernel.org" <brauner@kernel.org>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"debug@rivosinc.com" <debug@rivosinc.com>,
"mgorman@suse.de" <mgorman@suse.de>,
"Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
"fweimer@redhat.com" <fweimer@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"hjl.tools@gmail.com" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
"rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"vschneid@redhat.com" <vschneid@redhat.com>,
"kees@kernel.org" <kees@kernel.org>,
"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"jannh@google.com" <jannh@google.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"bsegall@google.com" <bsegall@google.com>,
"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
"broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v8 4/9] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:38:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zr9yiH6DP0IPac-H@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23a8838adda28b03b3db77e135934e2da0599d0f.camel@intel.com>
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 02:52:28PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-08-16 at 09:44 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > After a token is consumed normally, it doesn't set it to zero. Instead it
> > > sets it to a "previous-ssp token". I don't think we actually want to do that here
> > > though because it involves the old SSP, which doesn't really apply in this
> > > case. I don't see any problem with zero, but was there any special thinking behind
> > > it?
> >
> > BTW, since it's the parent setting up the shadow stack in its own
> > address space before forking, I think at least the read can avoid
> > access_remote_vm() and we could do it earlier, even before the new
> > process is created.
>
> Hmm. Makes sense. It's a bit racy since the parent could consume that token from
> another thread, but it would be a race in any case.
More on the race below. If we handle it properly, we don't need the
separate checks.
> > > > + if (access_remote_vm(mm, addr, &val, sizeof(val),
> > > > + FOLL_FORCE | FOLL_WRITE) != sizeof(val))
> > > > + goto out;
> > >
> > > The GUPs still seem a bit unfortunate for a couple reasons:
> > > - We could do a CMPXCHG version and are just not (I see ARM has identical
> > > code in gcs_consume_token()). It's not the only race like this though FWIW.
> > > - I *think* this is the only unprivileged FOLL_FORCE that can write to the
> > > current process in the kernel. As is, it could be used on normal RO
> > > mappings, at
> > > least in a limited way. Maybe another point for the VMA check. We'd want to
> > > check that it is normal shadow stack?
> > > - Lingering doubts about the wisdom of doing GUPs during task creation.
> >
> > I don't like the access_remote_vm() either. In the common (practically
> > only) case with CLONE_VM, the mm is actually current->mm, so no need for
> > a GUP.
>
> On the x86 side, we don't have a shadow stack access CMPXCHG. We will have to
> GUP and do a normal CMPXCHG off of the direct map to handle it fully properly in
> any case (CLONE_VM or not).
I guess we could do the same here and for the arm64 gcs_consume_token().
Basically get_user_page_vma_remote() gives us the page together with the
vma that you mentioned needs checking. We can then do a cmpxchg directly
on the page_address(). It's probably faster anyway than doing GUP twice.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-16 15:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-08 8:15 [PATCH RFT v8 0/9] fork: Support shadow stacks in clone3() Mark Brown
2024-08-08 8:15 ` [PATCH RFT v8 1/9] Documentation: userspace-api: Add shadow stack API documentation Mark Brown
2024-08-14 10:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-08 8:15 ` [PATCH RFT v8 2/9] selftests: Provide helper header for shadow stack testing Mark Brown
2024-08-08 8:15 ` [PATCH RFT v8 3/9] mm: Introduce ARCH_HAS_USER_SHADOW_STACK Mark Brown
2024-08-14 10:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-08 8:15 ` [PATCH RFT v8 4/9] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3() Mark Brown
2024-08-09 18:19 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-09 23:06 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-13 16:25 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-13 18:58 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-14 9:38 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-14 13:20 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-15 0:18 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2024-08-15 14:24 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-16 8:44 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-16 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-16 15:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-16 15:46 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-16 14:52 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2024-08-16 15:30 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-16 15:38 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2024-08-16 17:06 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-16 17:08 ` Jann Horn
2024-08-16 17:17 ` Mark Brown
2024-08-08 8:15 ` [PATCH RFT v8 5/9] selftests/clone3: Remove redundant flushes of output streams Mark Brown
2024-08-08 8:15 ` [PATCH RFT v8 6/9] selftests/clone3: Factor more of main loop into test_clone3() Mark Brown
2024-08-08 8:15 ` [PATCH RFT v8 7/9] selftests/clone3: Explicitly handle child exits due to signals Mark Brown
2024-08-08 8:15 ` [PATCH RFT v8 8/9] selftests/clone3: Allow tests to flag if -E2BIG is a valid error code Mark Brown
2024-08-08 8:15 ` [PATCH RFT v8 9/9] selftests/clone3: Test shadow stack support Mark Brown
2024-08-08 17:54 ` [PATCH RFT v8 0/9] fork: Support shadow stacks in clone3() Kees Cook
2024-08-15 0:19 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2024-08-16 15:52 ` Jann Horn
2024-08-16 16:19 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Zr9yiH6DP0IPac-H@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=debug@rivosinc.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox