Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-141406-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:30:44 -0700
From: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev, paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com,
	aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com,
	morbo@google.com, justinstitt@google.com, andy.chiu@sifive.com,
	hankuan.chen@sifive.com, guoren@kernel.org, greentime.hu@sifive.com,
	cleger@rivosinc.com, apatel@ventanamicro.com,
	ajones@ventanamicro.com, conor.dooley@microchip.com,
	mchitale@ventanamicro.com, dbarboza@ventanamicro.com,
	waylingii@gmail.com, sameo@rivosinc.com, alexghiti@rivosinc.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, shikemeng@huaweicloud.com,
	rppt@kernel.org, charlie@rivosinc.com, xiao.w.wang@intel.com,
	willy@infradead.org, jszhang@kernel.org, leobras@redhat.com,
	songshuaishuai@tinylab.org, haxel@fzi.de, samuel.holland@sifive.com,
	namcaov@gmail.com, bjorn@rivosinc.com, cuiyunhui@bytedance.com,
	wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, falcon@tinylab.org,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, bhe@redhat.com, chenjiahao16@huawei.com,
	hca@linux.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de, kent.overstreet@linux.dev,
	boqun.feng@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, paulmck@kernel.org,
	broonie@kernel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/12] riscv: dynamic (zicfiss) shadow call stack
 support
Message-ID: <ZhgeRA3XplDw7kmm@debug.ba.rivosinc.com>
References: <20240409061043.3269676-1-debug@rivosinc.com>
 <20240409061043.3269676-9-debug@rivosinc.com>
 <CABCJKud622jAHZGiYed-2veynA6rd_=1mnTwnTT1WNQ6203q6A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABCJKud622jAHZGiYed-2veynA6rd_=1mnTwnTT1WNQ6203q6A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 05:05:38PM +0000, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>Hi Deepak,
>
>Thanks for the patches!
>
>On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 6:12 AM Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Adding support for dynamic shadow call stack on riscv. zicfiss ISA extn.
>> enables protection for shadow stack against stray writes. This patch
>> enables scs_* macros to use zicfiss shadow stack pointer (CSR_SSP) instead
>> of relying on `gp`.
>
>CONFIG_DYNAMIC_SCS implies that runtime patching is used to select
>between software SCS and an alternative hardware implementation (in
>arm64's case, PAC instead of hardware shadow stacks). I understand
>this series is still an RFC, but I didn't see runtime patching
>support. Are you planning on implementing this later?

Since I didn't see any example on selecting PAC when `CONFIG_DYNAMIC_SCS`
is selected. So I had that confusion but wasn't sure. I thought of doing it
but I don't know how to binary rewrite all the functions. It might be too much.
So I went ahead with using `CONFIG_DYNAMIC_SCS` in this RFC series.

Question:
If arm64 were to use PAC with CONFIG_DYNAMIC_SCS, how would it fixup the code 
sequences already setup by compiler for shadow stack push and pop in runtime?
You expect this to be some offline process using some object editing tool or
a runtime decision? 

>
>If there's no plan to actually patch between Zicfiss and SCS at
>runtime, CONFIG_DYNAMIC_SCS doesn't seem like the appropriate choice
>and we might need a separate config option that still allows you to
>reuse most of the software SCS code.

I wanted to avoid "#ifdef RISCV_SPECIFIC_HW_SHSTK" in arch agnostic scs code.
And that's why went with CONFIG_DYNAMIC_SCS which sets dynamic static key once.
And then I use `is_dynamic` everywhere else in arch agnostic scs code.
>
>Sami