Re: [RFC PATCH v2 14/27] mm: Handle THP/HugeTLB shadow stack page fault

[Dave Hansen]

On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> @@ -1193,6 +1195,8 @@ static int do_huge_pmd_wp_page_fallback(struct vm_fault *vmf, pmd_t orig_pmd,
>  		pte_t entry;
>  		entry = mk_pte(pages[i], vma->vm_page_prot);
>  		entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(entry), vma);
> +		if (is_shstk_mapping(vma->vm_flags))
> +			entry = pte_mkdirty_shstk(entry);

Peter Z was pointing out that we should get rid of all this generic code
manipulation.  We might not easily be able to do it *all*, but we can do
better than what we've got here.

Basically, if you have code outside of arch/x86 in your patch set that
refers to shadow stacks, you should consider it a bug (for now),
especially if you have to hack .c files.

For instance, in the code above, you could move the is_shstk_mapping() into:

static inline pte_t maybe_mkwrite(pte_t pte, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
        if (likely(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))
                pte = pte_mkwrite(pte);
	
+	pte = arch_pte_mkwrite(pte, vma);
+
        return pte;
}

... and add an arch callback that does:

static inline pte_t maybe_mkwrite(pte_t pte, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
	if (!is_shstk_mapping(vma->vm_flags))
		return pte;

	WARN_ON(... pte bits incompatible with shadow stacks?);

	/* Lots of comments of course */
	entry = pte_mkdirty_shstk(entry);
}

This is just one example.  You are probably going to need a couple of
similar things.  Just remember: the bar is very high to make changes to
.c files outside of arch/x86.  You can do a _bit_ more in non-x86
headers, but you have the most freedom to patch what you want as long as
it's in arch/x86.