Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191018161033.261971-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20191105235608.107702-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20191105235608.107702-12-samitolvanen@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191105235608.107702-12-samitolvanen@google.com>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 05:45:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CANiq72mZC-G_R_RJjapZS+NvkQcrjdiri0NyHUgesFzUpe-MDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/14] arm64: efi: restore x18 if it was corrupted
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:56 AM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com> wrote:
>
> If we detect a corrupted x18 and SCS is enabled, restore the register
> before jumping back to instrumented code. This is safe, because the
> wrapper is called with preemption disabled and a separate shadow stack
> is used for interrupt handling.

In case you do v6: I think putting the explanation about why this is
safe in the existing comment would be best given it is justifying a
subtlety of the code rather than the change itself. Ard?

Cheers,
Miguel