From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-pl0-f69.google.com (mail-pl0-f69.google.com [209.85.160.69])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BFB46B0005
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Thu,  7 Jun 2018 12:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-pl0-f69.google.com with SMTP id g6-v6so5711869plq.9
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 09:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com. [134.134.136.100])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h68-v6si28951237pgc.429.2018.06.07.09.49.21
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Thu, 07 Jun 2018 09:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1528389969.4636.25.camel@2b52.sc.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] x86/mm: Shadow stack page fault error checking
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 09:46:09 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXA--XrVNvPM4-Cv6-E6OFd=TZ5Gw_MWePt7MtqCBBqRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180607143705.3531-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
	 <20180607143705.3531-8-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
	 <CALCETrXA--XrVNvPM4-Cv6-E6OFd=TZ5Gw_MWePt7MtqCBBqRg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com>, "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, mike.kravetz@oracle.com

On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 09:26 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:40 AM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > If a page fault is triggered by a shadow stack access (e.g.
> > call/ret) or shadow stack management instructions (e.g.
> > wrussq), then bit[6] of the page fault error code is set.
> >
> > In access_error(), we check if a shadow stack page fault
> > is within a shadow stack memory area.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > index 73bd8c95ac71..2b3b9170109c 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > @@ -1166,6 +1166,17 @@ access_error(unsigned long error_code, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >                                        (error_code & X86_PF_INSTR), foreign))
> >                 return 1;
> >
> > +       /*
> > +        * 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;
> > +       }
> > +
> 
> What, if anything, would go wrong without this change?  It seems like
> it might be purely an optimization.  If so, can you mention that in
> the comment?

Without this check, the page fault code could overlook the fact that the
application is trying to use non shadow stack area for shadow stack.
I will add this to the comments.