Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61910-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:38:12 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "dietmar.eggemann@arm.com" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	"Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
	"brauner@kernel.org" <brauner@kernel.org>,
	"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"debug@rivosinc.com" <debug@rivosinc.com>,
	"mgorman@suse.de" <mgorman@suse.de>,
	"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"fweimer@redhat.com" <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"hjl.tools@gmail.com" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"vschneid@redhat.com" <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	"shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>,
	"bristot@redhat.com" <bristot@redhat.com>,
	"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
	"bsegall@google.com" <bsegall@google.com>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	"keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"jannh@google.com" <jannh@google.com>,
	"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"linux-api@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v5 4/7] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
Message-ID: <cc43d304-e24b-40fd-9205-fd27889e6a24@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20240203-clone3-shadow-stack-v5-0-322c69598e4b@kernel.org>
 <20240203-clone3-shadow-stack-v5-4-322c69598e4b@kernel.org>
 <565ca9697cf26be5509ef4b3c1cc95fa4f692b9f.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XnIAPc9INoBAbmh3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <565ca9697cf26be5509ef4b3c1cc95fa4f692b9f.camel@intel.com>


--XnIAPc9INoBAbmh3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:18:11PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 00:05 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > +=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0if (write_user_shstk_64((u64 __user *)addr, 0))
> > +=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0return false;
> > +
> > +=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0return true;
> > +}

> So, don't we want to consume the token on the *new* task's MM, which
> was already duplicated but still unmapped? In which case I think the
> other arch's would need to GUP regardless of the existence of shadow
> stack atomic ops.

Yes, that would be better - if nothing else it allows reuse of the same
shadow stack for multiple !CLONE_VM clone3()s. =20

> I wonder about adding a shstk_post_fork() to make it easier to think
> about and maintain, even if there are no issues today.

I agree.

--XnIAPc9INoBAbmh3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmXKO2MACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9BqSAf+JmlarRUTbUjNy7XErOY1+sGJ7QrnXHdQSEcNoGjYbcTudWKT2BQBtPU4
25OZCFe6MnCp1WbVvkSJjlDsRZSWI0fgc/o04ZjWeCSg2vNekeC8PabqKBqGB6eJ
kPruQ3h37qAloHiol4sFqqRZKSingsICPpOD6K5SIpf5wtOHlBI6rh9kdMPxCAYm
EiD5bZJCR0WGUAqV7ntWMdT9KDo5W/qbH0RYCeEJlnKBcku1QhfDXu3ixhfjm5cH
uSQCQnE3fEUu78UJPfbFmnhLW333PHKcZPNRDp4sL4ImxIR/YQyuXrkX05UscKvv
nWPnxHSYJ9Rv3JB2RMXeeQCfd3cEZw==
=ZDZz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--XnIAPc9INoBAbmh3--