On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 05:44:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 05:12:30PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 02:15:22AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > +static bool is_invalid_gcs_access(struct vm_area_struct *vma, u64 esr)
>
> > > + } else if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHADOW_STACK)) {
> > > + /* Only GCS operations can write to a GCS page */
> > > + return is_write_abort(esr);
> > > + }
>
> > I don't think that's right. The ESR on this path may not even indicate a
> > data abort and ESR.WnR bit check wouldn't make sense.
>
> > I presume we want to avoid an infinite loop on a (writeable) GCS page
> > when the user does a normal STR but the CPU raises a permission fault. I
> > think this function needs to just return false if !esr_is_data_abort().
>
> Yes, that should check for a data abort. I think I'd formed the
> impression that is_write_abort() included that check somehow. As you
> say it's to avoid spinning trying to resolve a permission fault for a
> write (non-GCS reads to a GCS page are valid), I do think we need the
> is_write_abort() since non-GCS reads are valid so something like:
>
> if (!esr_is_data_abort(esr))
> return false;
>
> return is_write_abort(esr);
We do need the write abort check but not unconditionally, only if to a
GCS page (you can have other genuine write aborts).
--
Catalin
