[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181218013144.GB333@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 03:31:44 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
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,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...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 Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 03:17:25AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:12:21AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I'm going to ask an obnoxious high-level question: why does an enclave
> > even refer to a specific mm?
>
> The reason is that it has not been yet in focus in the review process
> and there has been other concerns.
>
> At least the code is fairly stable i.e. working code is usually good
> starting point for making something different (ignoring the recent
> regression caused by the shmem to VMA migration).
>
> > If I were designing this thing, and if I hadn't started trying to
> > implement it, my first thought would be that an enclave tracks its
> > linear address range, which is just a pair of numbers, and also keeps
> > track of a whole bunch of physical EPC pages, data structures, etc.
> > And that mmap() gets rejected unless the requested virtual address
> > matches the linear address range that the enclave wants and, aside
> > from that, just creates a VMA that keeps a reference to the enclave.
> > (And, for convenience, I suppose that the first mmap() call done
> > before any actual enclave setup happens could choose any address and
> > then cause the enclave to lock itself to that address, although a
> > regular anonymous PROT_NONE MAP_NORESERVE mapping would do just fine,
> > too.) And the driver would explicitly allow multiple different mms to
> > have the same enclave mapped. More importantly, a daemon could set up
> > an enclave without necessarily mapping it at all and then SCM_RIGHTS
> > the enclave over to the process that plans to run it.
>
> The current SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_CREATE ioctl would be trivial to change to
> use this approach. Instead looking up VMA with an enclave instance it
> would create a new enclave instance.
>
> Then we could have SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_ATTACH to attach an enclave to a VMA.
>
> This does not sound too complicated.
>
> > Now I'm sure this has all kinds of problems, such as the ISA possibly
> > making it rather obnoxious to add pages to the enclave without having
> > it mapped. But these operations could, in principle, be done by
>
> We do EADD in a kthread. What this would require to put current->mm
> into a request that it is processed by that thread. This would be
> doable with mmget().
Correction here. We need mm just for vm_insert_pfn(), which would be
removed, no need to pass mm.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists