From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
To: "broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: "debug@rivosinc.com" <debug@rivosinc.com>,
"mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@intel.com>,
"oleg@redhat.com" <oleg@redhat.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86/shstk: don't create the shadow stack for PF_USER_WORKERs
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 22:43:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <78b04d05b94b605f287b9a594cd2aa9f1cda10df.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e50065a9-d5e2-4e94-94b2-e34c5fac9720@sirena.org.uk>
On Thu, 2025-08-14 at 19:33 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > How about just adding the 'minimal' condition to:
> > if (clone_flags & CLONE_VFORK) {
> > shstk->base = 0;
> > shstk->size = 0;
> > return 0;
> > }
> > ...then update all the comments where vfork is called out as the only case
> > that
> > does this?
>
> Perhaps we should factor the logic for deciding if we need to allocate a
> userspace shadow stack out into the arch independent code and do
> something like set a flag in kernel_clone_args that the arches can
> check? I think the logic is the same for all arches at the minute and
> don't see a reason why it'd diverge.
Sounds good. Like a little start to this:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241010-shstk_converge-v1-0-631beca676e7@rivosinc.com/
> That'd collide a bit with my
> clone3() series, there's some overlap there with that creating another
> reason why the decision would change. Reducing the duplication would be
> nice.
Argh, I need to test the latest of that still.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-14 22:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-14 10:13 [PATCH 0/6] x86/fpu: don't abuse x86_task_fpu(PF_USER_WORKER) in .regset_get() paths Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-14 10:14 ` [PATCH 1/6] x86/fpu: change copy_xstate_to_uabi_buf() to accept fpstate + pkru instead of task_struct Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-14 16:46 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-08-15 12:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-14 10:14 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86/fpu: regset: introduce get_fpstate() helper Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-14 10:14 ` [PATCH 3/6] x86/fpu: fold sync_fpstate() into get_fpstate() Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-14 10:14 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86/shstk: add "task_struct *tsk" argument to reset_thread_features() Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-14 10:14 ` [PATCH 5/6] x86/shstk: don't create the shadow stack for PF_USER_WORKERs Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-14 17:03 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-08-14 18:33 ` Mark Brown
2025-08-14 22:43 ` Edgecombe, Rick P [this message]
2025-08-15 11:44 ` Mark Brown
2025-08-15 19:11 ` Deepak Gupta
2025-08-18 17:27 ` Mark Brown
2025-08-19 17:41 ` Deepak Gupta
2025-08-15 13:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-15 13:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-15 15:28 ` Mark Brown
2025-08-15 15:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-15 15:48 ` Mark Brown
2025-08-15 16:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-15 17:08 ` Mark Brown
2025-08-15 12:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-15 16:19 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-08-15 16:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-15 17:46 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-08-15 19:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-14 10:14 ` [PATCH 6/6] x86/fpu: change get_fpstate() to return &init_fpstate if PF_USER_WORKER Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-15 15:52 ` [PATCH 0/6] x86/fpu: don't abuse x86_task_fpu(PF_USER_WORKER) in .regset_get() paths Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-15 15:59 ` Dave Hansen
2025-08-15 16:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-15 16:32 ` Sohil Mehta
2025-08-15 19:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=78b04d05b94b605f287b9a594cd2aa9f1cda10df.camel@intel.com \
--to=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=debug@rivosinc.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sohil.mehta@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®