On 3/22/2021 3:38 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 08:10:40AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.cindex a73347e2cdfc..4316732a18c6 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c @@ -1100,6 +1100,17 @@ access_error(unsigned long error_code, struct vm_area_struct *vma) (error_code & X86_PF_INSTR), foreign)) return 1;+ /*+ * Verify a shadow stack access is within a shadow stack VMA. + * It is always an error otherwise. Normal data access to a + * shadow stack area is checked in the case followed. + */ + if (error_code & X86_PF_SHSTK) { + if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHSTK)) + return 1; + return 0;Any reason to return 0 here? I would rather keep the single return 0 in the function, after all checks are done.
For shadow stack fault, X86_PF_SHSTK and X86_PF_WRITE both can be set. So for shadow stack fault, return from here and don't go into the normal write fault case.
Thanks, Yu-cheng
+ } + if (error_code & X86_PF_WRITE) { /* write, present and write, not present: */ if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))) @@ -1293,6 +1304,14 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, address); + /*+ * Clearing _PAGE_DIRTY is used to detect shadow stack access. + * This method cannot distinguish shadow stack read vs. write. + * For valid shadow stack accesses, set FAULT_FLAG_WRITE to effect + * copy-on-write. + */ + if (error_code & X86_PF_SHSTK) + flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE; if (error_code & X86_PF_WRITE) flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE; if (error_code & X86_PF_INSTR) -- 2.21.0

