diff mbox series

[v5,11/37] mm: Define VM_SHADOW_STACK for arm64 when we support GCS

Message ID 20230822-arm64-gcs-v5-11-9ef181dd6324@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series arm64/gcs: Provide support for GCS in userspace | expand

Commit Message

Mark Brown Aug. 22, 2023, 1:56 p.m. UTC
Use VM_HIGH_ARCH_5 for guarded control stack pages.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst |  2 +-
 fs/proc/task_mmu.c                 |  3 +++
 include/linux/mm.h                 | 12 +++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

David Hildenbrand Aug. 22, 2023, 3:21 p.m. UTC | #1
On 22.08.23 15:56, Mark Brown wrote:
> Use VM_HIGH_ARCH_5 for guarded control stack pages.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> ---
>   Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst |  2 +-
>   fs/proc/task_mmu.c                 |  3 +++
>   include/linux/mm.h                 | 12 +++++++++++-
>   3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> index 6ccb57089a06..086a0408a4d7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ encoded manner. The codes are the following:
>       mt    arm64 MTE allocation tags are enabled
>       um    userfaultfd missing tracking
>       uw    userfaultfd wr-protect tracking
> -    ss    shadow stack page
> +    ss    shadow/guarded control stack page
>       ==    =======================================
>   
>   Note that there is no guarantee that every flag and associated mnemonic will
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index cfab855fe7e9..e8c50848bb16 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -711,6 +711,9 @@ static void show_smap_vma_flags(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>   #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_MINOR */
>   #ifdef CONFIG_X86_USER_SHADOW_STACK
>   		[ilog2(VM_SHADOW_STACK)] = "ss",
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_GCS
> +		[ilog2(VM_SHADOW_STACK)] = "ss",
>   #endif

See my comment below.

>   	};
>   	size_t i;
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 43fe625b85aa..3f939ae212e5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -372,7 +372,17 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void *objp);
>    * having a PAGE_SIZE guard gap.
>    */
>   # define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> -#else
> +#endif
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64_GCS)
> +/*
> + * arm64's Guarded Control Stack implements similar functionality and
> + * has similar constraints to shadow stacks.
> + */
> +# define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> +#endif


Shouldn't that all just merged with the previous define(s)?

Also, I wonder if we now want to have CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SHADOW_STACK or 
similar.
Mark Brown Aug. 22, 2023, 3:41 p.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:21:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.08.23 15:56, Mark Brown wrote:

> > @@ -372,7 +372,17 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void *objp);
> >    * having a PAGE_SIZE guard gap.
> >    */
> >   # define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> > -#else
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64_GCS)
> > +/*
> > + * arm64's Guarded Control Stack implements similar functionality and
> > + * has similar constraints to shadow stacks.
> > + */
> > +# define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> > +#endif

> Shouldn't that all just merged with the previous define(s)?

> Also, I wonder if we now want to have CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SHADOW_STACK or
> similar.

I can certainly update it to do that, I was just trying to fit in with
how the code was written on the basis that there was probably a good
reason for it that had been discussed somewhere.  I can send an
incremental patch for this on top of the x86 patches assuming they go in
during the merge window.
Edgecombe, Rick P Aug. 22, 2023, 4:47 p.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, 2023-08-22 at 16:41 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:21:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 22.08.23 15:56, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > @@ -372,7 +372,17 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void
> > > *objp);
> > >     * having a PAGE_SIZE guard gap.
> > >     */
> > >    # define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> > > -#else
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64_GCS)
> > > +/*
> > > + * arm64's Guarded Control Stack implements similar
> > > functionality and
> > > + * has similar constraints to shadow stacks.
> > > + */
> > > +# define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> > > +#endif
> 
> > Shouldn't that all just merged with the previous define(s)?
> 
> > Also, I wonder if we now want to have CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SHADOW_STACK
> > or
> > similar.
> 
> I can certainly update it to do that, I was just trying to fit in
> with
> how the code was written on the basis that there was probably a good
> reason for it that had been discussed somewhere.  I can send an
> incremental patch for this on top of the x86 patches assuming they go
> in
> during the merge window.

There was something like that on the x86 series way back, but it was
dropped[0]. IIRC risc-v was going to try to do something other than
VM_SHADOW_STACK, so they may conflict some day. But in the meantime,
adding a CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SHADOW_STACK here in the arm series makes
sense to me.

[0]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d09e952d8ae696f687f0787dfeb7be7699c02913.camel@intel.com/
Mark Brown Aug. 22, 2023, 5:55 p.m. UTC | #4
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 04:47:26PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-08-22 at 16:41 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > I can certainly update it to do that, I was just trying to fit in
> > with
> > how the code was written on the basis that there was probably a good
> > reason for it that had been discussed somewhere.  I can send an
> > incremental patch for this on top of the x86 patches assuming they go
> > in
> > during the merge window.

> There was something like that on the x86 series way back, but it was
> dropped[0]. IIRC risc-v was going to try to do something other than
> VM_SHADOW_STACK, so they may conflict some day. But in the meantime,
> adding a CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SHADOW_STACK here in the arm series makes
> sense to me.

OK, I'll do that.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
index 6ccb57089a06..086a0408a4d7 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
@@ -566,7 +566,7 @@  encoded manner. The codes are the following:
     mt    arm64 MTE allocation tags are enabled
     um    userfaultfd missing tracking
     uw    userfaultfd wr-protect tracking
-    ss    shadow stack page
+    ss    shadow/guarded control stack page
     ==    =======================================
 
 Note that there is no guarantee that every flag and associated mnemonic will
diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
index cfab855fe7e9..e8c50848bb16 100644
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
@@ -711,6 +711,9 @@  static void show_smap_vma_flags(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
 #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_MINOR */
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86_USER_SHADOW_STACK
 		[ilog2(VM_SHADOW_STACK)] = "ss",
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_GCS
+		[ilog2(VM_SHADOW_STACK)] = "ss",
 #endif
 	};
 	size_t i;
diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
index 43fe625b85aa..3f939ae212e5 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm.h
@@ -372,7 +372,17 @@  extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void *objp);
  * having a PAGE_SIZE guard gap.
  */
 # define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
-#else
+#endif
+
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64_GCS)
+/*
+ * arm64's Guarded Control Stack implements similar functionality and
+ * has similar constraints to shadow stacks.
+ */
+# define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
+#endif
+
+#ifndef VM_SHADOW_STACK
 # define VM_SHADOW_STACK	VM_NONE
 #endif