On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:23 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 06/07/2018 09:24 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> +static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect_flush(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> + unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
> >> +{
> >> + bool rw;
> >> +
> >> + rw = test_and_clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_RW, (unsigned long *)&ptep->pte);
> >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_INTEL_SHADOW_STACK_USER)) {
> >> + struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> >> + pte_t pte;
> >> +
> >> + if (rw && (atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) > 1))
> >> + pte = ptep_clear_flush(vma, addr, ptep);
> > Why are you clearing the pte?
>
> I think I insisted on this being in there.
>
> First of all, we need to flush the TLB eventually because we need the
> shadowstack PTE permissions to be in effect.
>
> But, generally, we can't clear a dirty bit in a "live" PTE without
> flushing. The processor can keep writing until we flush, and even keep
> setting it whenever _it_ allows a write, which it can do based on stale
> TLB contents. Practically, I think a walk to set the dirty bit is
> mostly the same as a TLB miss, but that's certainly not guaranteed forever.
>
> That's even ignoring all the fun errata we have.
Maybe make it a separate patch, then? It seems like this patch is
doing two almost entirely separate things: adding some flushes and
adding the magic hwdirty -> swdirty transition. As it stands, it's
quite difficult to read the patch and figure out what it does.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
