[v9,02/42] mm: Move pte/pmd_mkwrite() callers with no VMA to _novma()

  The x86 Shadow stack feature includes a new type of memory called shadow
stack. This shadow stack memory has some unusual properties, which requires
some core mm changes to function properly.

One of these unusual properties is that shadow stack memory is writable,
but only in limited ways. These limits are applied via a specific PTE
bit combination. Nevertheless, the memory is writable, and core mm code
will need to apply the writable permissions in the typical paths that
call pte_mkwrite(). Future patches will make pte_mkwrite() take a VMA, so
that the x86 implementation of it can know whether to create regular
writable memory or shadow stack memory.

But there are a couple of challenges to this. Modifying the signatures of
each arch pte_mkwrite() implementation would be error prone because some
are generated with macros and would need to be re-implemented. Also, some
pte_mkwrite() callers operate on kernel memory without a VMA.

So this can be done in a three step process. First pte_mkwrite() can be
renamed to pte_mkwrite_novma() in each arch, with a generic pte_mkwrite()
added that just calls pte_mkwrite_novma(). Next callers without a VMA can
be moved to pte_mkwrite_novma(). And lastly, pte_mkwrite() and all callers
can be changed to take/pass a VMA.

Previous patches have done the first step, so next move the callers that
don't have a VMA to pte_mkwrite_novma(). Also do the same for
pmd_mkwrite(). This will be ok for the shadow stack feature, as these
callers are on kernel memory which will not need to be made shadow stack,
and the other architectures only currently support one type of memory
in pte_mkwrite()

Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
---
Hi Non-x86 Arch’s,

x86 has a feature that allows for the creation of a special type of
writable memory (shadow stack) that is only writable in limited specific
ways. Previously, changes were proposed to core MM code to teach it to
decide when to create normally writable memory or the special shadow stack
writable memory, but David Hildenbrand suggested[0] to change
pXX_mkwrite() to take a VMA, so awareness of shadow stack memory can be
moved into x86 code. Later Linus suggested a less error-prone way[1] to go
about this after the first attempt had a bug.

Since pXX_mkwrite() is defined in every arch, it requires some tree-wide
changes. So that is why you are seeing some patches out of a big x86
series pop up in your arch mailing list. There is no functional change.
After this refactor, the shadow stack series goes on to use the arch
helpers to push arch memory details inside arch/x86 and other arch's
with upcoming shadow stack features.

Testing was just 0-day build testing.

Hopefully that is enough context. Thanks!

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0e29a2d0-08d8-bcd6-ff26-4bea0e4037b0@redhat.com/
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiZjSu7c9sFYZb3q04108stgHff2wfbokGCCgW7riz+8Q@mail.gmail.com/
---
 arch/arm64/mm/trans_pgd.c | 4 ++--
 arch/s390/mm/pageattr.c   | 4 ++--
 arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c     | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
  

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 05:10:28PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> The x86 Shadow stack feature includes a new type of memory called shadow
> stack. This shadow stack memory has some unusual properties, which requires
> some core mm changes to function properly.
> 
> One of these unusual properties is that shadow stack memory is writable,
> but only in limited ways. These limits are applied via a specific PTE
> bit combination. Nevertheless, the memory is writable, and core mm code
> will need to apply the writable permissions in the typical paths that
> call pte_mkwrite(). Future patches will make pte_mkwrite() take a VMA, so
> that the x86 implementation of it can know whether to create regular
> writable memory or shadow stack memory.

Nit:                            ^ mappings?
 
> But there are a couple of challenges to this. Modifying the signatures of
> each arch pte_mkwrite() implementation would be error prone because some
> are generated with macros and would need to be re-implemented. Also, some
> pte_mkwrite() callers operate on kernel memory without a VMA.
> 
> So this can be done in a three step process. First pte_mkwrite() can be
> renamed to pte_mkwrite_novma() in each arch, with a generic pte_mkwrite()
> added that just calls pte_mkwrite_novma(). Next callers without a VMA can
> be moved to pte_mkwrite_novma(). And lastly, pte_mkwrite() and all callers
> can be changed to take/pass a VMA.
> 
> Previous patches have done the first step, so next move the callers that
> don't have a VMA to pte_mkwrite_novma(). Also do the same for

I hear x86 maintainers asking to drop "previous patches" ;-)

Maybe
This is the second step of the conversion that moves the callers ...

> pmd_mkwrite(). This will be ok for the shadow stack feature, as these
> callers are on kernel memory which will not need to be made shadow stack,
> and the other architectures only currently support one type of memory
> in pte_mkwrite()
> 
> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@kernel.org>
  

On 13.06.23 02:10, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> The x86 Shadow stack feature includes a new type of memory called shadow
> stack. This shadow stack memory has some unusual properties, which requires
> some core mm changes to function properly.
> 
> One of these unusual properties is that shadow stack memory is writable,
> but only in limited ways. These limits are applied via a specific PTE
> bit combination. Nevertheless, the memory is writable, and core mm code
> will need to apply the writable permissions in the typical paths that
> call pte_mkwrite(). Future patches will make pte_mkwrite() take a VMA, so
> that the x86 implementation of it can know whether to create regular
> writable memory or shadow stack memory.
> 
> But there are a couple of challenges to this. Modifying the signatures of
> each arch pte_mkwrite() implementation would be error prone because some
> are generated with macros and would need to be re-implemented. Also, some
> pte_mkwrite() callers operate on kernel memory without a VMA.
> 
> So this can be done in a three step process. First pte_mkwrite() can be
> renamed to pte_mkwrite_novma() in each arch, with a generic pte_mkwrite()
> added that just calls pte_mkwrite_novma(). Next callers without a VMA can
> be moved to pte_mkwrite_novma(). And lastly, pte_mkwrite() and all callers
> can be changed to take/pass a VMA.
> 
> Previous patches have done the first step, so next move the callers that
> don't have a VMA to pte_mkwrite_novma(). Also do the same for
> pmd_mkwrite(). This will be ok for the shadow stack feature, as these
> callers are on kernel memory which will not need to be made shadow stack,
> and the other architectures only currently support one type of memory
> in pte_mkwrite()
> 
> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> ---

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
  

On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 10:44 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Previous patches have done the first step, so next move the callers
> > that
> > don't have a VMA to pte_mkwrite_novma(). Also do the same for
> 
> I hear x86 maintainers asking to drop "previous patches" ;-)
> 
> Maybe
> This is the second step of the conversion that moves the callers ...

Really? I've not heard that. Just a strong aversion to "this patch".
I've got feedback to say "previous patches" and not "the last patch" so
it doesn't get stale. I guess it could be "previous changes".

> 
> > pmd_mkwrite(). This will be ok for the shadow stack feature, as
> > these
> > callers are on kernel memory which will not need to be made shadow
> > stack,
> > and the other architectures only currently support one type of
> > memory
> > in pte_mkwrite()
> > 
> > Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> > Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@kernel.org>

Thanks!
  

On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 14:27 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Thanks!
  

On 13.06.23 18:19, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 10:44 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> Previous patches have done the first step, so next move the callers
>>> that
>>> don't have a VMA to pte_mkwrite_novma(). Also do the same for
>>
>> I hear x86 maintainers asking to drop "previous patches" ;-)
>>
>> Maybe
>> This is the second step of the conversion that moves the callers ...
> 
> Really? I've not heard that. Just a strong aversion to "this patch".
> I've got feedback to say "previous patches" and not "the last patch" so
> it doesn't get stale. I guess it could be "previous changes".

Talking about patches make sense when discussing literal patches sent to 
the mailing list. In the git log, it's commit, and "future commits" or 
"follow-up work".

Yes, we use "patches" all of the time in commit logs, especially when we 
  include the cover letter in the commit message (as done frequently in 
the -mm tree).
  

On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 19:00 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.06.23 18:19, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 10:44 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > Previous patches have done the first step, so next move the
> > > > callers
> > > > that
> > > > don't have a VMA to pte_mkwrite_novma(). Also do the same for
> > > 
> > > I hear x86 maintainers asking to drop "previous patches" ;-)
> > > 
> > > Maybe
> > > This is the second step of the conversion that moves the callers
> > > ...
> > 
> > Really? I've not heard that. Just a strong aversion to "this
> > patch".
> > I've got feedback to say "previous patches" and not "the last
> > patch" so
> > it doesn't get stale. I guess it could be "previous changes".
> 
> Talking about patches make sense when discussing literal patches sent
> to 
> the mailing list. In the git log, it's commit, and "future commits"
> or 
> "follow-up work".
> 
> Yes, we use "patches" all of the time in commit logs, especially when
> we 
>   include the cover letter in the commit message (as done frequently
> in 
> the -mm tree).

I think I'll switch over to talking about "changes". If you talk about
commits it doesn't make as much sense when they are still just patches.
Thanks.