Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-39008-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 09:07:02 -0800
From: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, broonie@kernel.org, Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com,
	kito.cheng@sifive.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	ajones@ventanamicro.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com,
	palmer@dabbelt.com, conor.dooley@microchip.com, cleger@rivosinc.com,
	atishp@atishpatra.org, alex@ghiti.fr, bjorn@rivosinc.com,
	alexghiti@rivosinc.com, corbet@lwn.net, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
	oleg@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de,
	ebiederm@xmission.com, shuah@kernel.org, brauner@kernel.org,
	guoren@kernel.org, samitolvanen@google.com, evan@rivosinc.com,
	xiao.w.wang@intel.com, apatel@ventanamicro.com,
	mchitale@ventanamicro.com, waylingii@gmail.com,
	greentime.hu@sifive.com, heiko@sntech.de, jszhang@kernel.org,
	shikemeng@huaweicloud.com, charlie@rivosinc.com,
	panqinglin2020@iscas.ac.cn, willy@infradead.org,
	vincent.chen@sifive.com, andy.chiu@sifive.com, gerg@kernel.org,
	jeeheng.sia@starfivetech.com, mason.huo@starfivetech.com,
	ancientmodern4@gmail.com, mathis.salmen@matsal.de,
	cuiyunhui@bytedance.com, bhe@redhat.com, chenjiahao16@huawei.com,
	ruscur@russell.cc, bgray@linux.ibm.com, alx@kernel.org,
	baruch@tkos.co.il, zhangqing@loongson.cn, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	revest@chromium.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, joey.gouly@arm.com,
	shr@devkernel.io, omosnace@redhat.com, ojeda@kernel.org,
	jhubbard@nvidia.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 09/28] mm: abstract shadow stack vma behind
 `arch_is_shadow_stack`
Message-ID: <ZbKVNm5ubV8yQtSE@debug.ba.rivosinc.com>
References: <20240125062739.1339782-1-debug@rivosinc.com>
 <20240125062739.1339782-10-debug@rivosinc.com>
 <2f34f6aa-99fa-4545-b706-a1d50864f9e9@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2f34f6aa-99fa-4545-b706-a1d50864f9e9@redhat.com>

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 09:18:07AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>On 25.01.24 07:21, debug@rivosinc.com wrote:
>>From: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>This patch changes checks of VM_SHADOW_STACK flag in generic code to call
>>to a function `arch_is_shadow_stack` which will return true if arch
>>supports shadow stack and vma is shadow stack else stub returns false.
>>
>>There was a suggestion to name it as `vma_is_shadow_stack`. I preferred to
>>keep `arch` prefix in there because it's each arch specific.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
>>---
>>  include/linux/mm.h | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>>  mm/gup.c           |  5 +++--
>>  mm/internal.h      |  2 +-
>>  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
>>index dfe0e8118669..15c70fc677a3 100644
>>--- a/include/linux/mm.h
>>+++ b/include/linux/mm.h
>>@@ -352,6 +352,10 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void *objp);
>>   * for more details on the guard size.
>>   */
>>  # define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
>>+static inline bool arch_is_shadow_stack(vm_flags_t vm_flags)
>>+{
>>+	return (vm_flags & VM_SHADOW_STACK);
>>+}
>>  #endif
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_USER_CFI
>>@@ -362,10 +366,22 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void *objp);
>>   * with VM_SHARED.
>>   */
>>  #define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_WRITE
>>+
>>+static inline bool arch_is_shadow_stack(vm_flags_t vm_flags)
>>+{
>>+	return ((vm_flags & (VM_WRITE | VM_READ | VM_EXEC)) == VM_WRITE);
>>+}
>>+
>
>Please no such hacks just to work around the 32bit vmflags limitation.

As I said in another response. Noted.
And if there're no takers for 32bit on riscv (which highly likely is the case)
This will go away in next version of patchsets.

>
>-- 
>Cheers,
>
>David / dhildenb
>