linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 18/23] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181217194913.GD29785@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:49:13 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com,
        npmccallum@...hat.com, "Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
        shay.katz-zamir@...el.com,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, mark.shanahan@...el.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 18/23] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:17:49AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/17/18 11:12 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > So I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it the way you are now, but I
> > do think that the changelog or at least some emails should explain
> > *why* the enclave needs to keep a pointer to the creating process's
> > mm.  And, if you do keep the current model, it would be nice to
> > understand what happens if you do something awful like mremap()ing an
> > enclave, or calling madvise on it, or otherwise abusing the vma.  Or
> > doing fork(), for that matter.
> 
> Yeah, the code is built to have one VMA and only one VMA per enclave.
> You need to go over the origin of this restriction and what enforces this.

It is before ECREATE but after that you can split it with mprotect().

Lets take an example. I'm not sure how we would acquire mm efficiently
in sgx_encl_page_reclaim() otherwise than having it as a field in encl.

/Jarkko