Re: [PATCH v1] mm: abstract shadow stack vma behind arch_is_shadow_stack_vma

[Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>]

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 2:24 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 14:20:36 -0800 Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 1:45 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 15:51:04 -0800 Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > x86 has used VM_SHADOW_STACK (alias to VM_HIGH_ARCH_5) to encode shadow
> > > > stack VMA. VM_SHADOW_STACK is thus not possible on 32bit. Some arches may
> > > > need a way to encode shadow stack on 32bit and 64bit both and they may
> > > > encode this information differently in VMAs.
> > >
> > > Is such a patch in the pipeline?  Otherwise we're making a change that
> > > serves no purpose.
> >
> > Yes I do have patches in the pipeline for riscv.
> > On riscv, presence of only `VM_WRITE` (i.e. (flags & (VM_READ |
> > VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC))
> > == VM_WRITE) would mean a shadow stack.
> > And yes there would be  relevant patches to ensure that existing consumers using
> > `PROT_WRITE` gets translated to (VM_WRITE | VM_READ)
>
> OK, please plan to carry this patch in whatever tree contains the above.
>
>
ACK. Thanks