Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-75742-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:47:11 -0800
From: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, 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, david@redhat.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 15/28] riscv/mm: Implement map_shadow_stack()
 syscall
Message-ID: <ZdaZj0pqaVJiNOUg@debug.ba.rivosinc.com>
References: <20240125062739.1339782-1-debug@rivosinc.com>
 <20240125062739.1339782-16-debug@rivosinc.com>
 <ZcJX2IJb0hOM5RF5@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZcJX2IJb0hOM5RF5@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 04:01:28PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:21:40PM -0800, debug@rivosinc.com wrote:
>
>> As discussed extensively in the changelog for the addition of this
>> syscall on x86 ("x86/shstk: Introduce map_shadow_stack syscall") the
>> existing mmap() and madvise() syscalls do not map entirely well onto the
>> security requirements for guarded control stacks since they lead to
>> windows where memory is allocated but not yet protected or stacks which
>> are not properly and safely initialised. Instead a new syscall
>> map_shadow_stack() has been defined which allocates and initialises a
>> shadow stack page.
>
>While I agree that this is very well written you probably want to update
>the references to guarded control stacks to whatever the RISC-V term is :P

Noted. I'll do that in next patchset.

>
>> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman.h
>> @@ -19,4 +19,5 @@
>>  #define MCL_FUTURE	2		/* lock all future mappings */
>>  #define MCL_ONFAULT	4		/* lock all pages that are faulted in */
>>
>> +#define SHADOW_STACK_SET_TOKEN (1ULL << 0)     /* Set up a restore token in the shadow stack */
>>  #endif /* __ASM_GENERIC_MMAN_H */
>
>For arm64 I also added a SHADOW_STACK_SET_MARKER for adding a top of
>stack marker, did you have any thoughts on that for RISC-V?  I think x86
>were considering adding it too, it'd be good if we could get things
>consistent.

Please correct me on this. A token at the top which can't be consumed to restore
but *just* purely as marker, right?
It's a good design basic with not a lot of cost.

I think risc-v should be able to converge on that.