[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e1478f70-7e44-6e3e-2aaf-1b12a96328ed@fortanix.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 20:54:00 +0000
From: Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"npmccallum@...hat.com" <npmccallum@...hat.com>,
"Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
"Katz-zamir, Shay" <shay.katz-zamir@...el.com>,
"Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support
On 2019-04-19 13:50, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Jethro Beekman wrote:
>> On 2019-04-19 13:39, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Jethro Beekman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-04-19 08:27, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>> There are many,
>>>>> many Linux systems that enforce a policy that *all* executable text
>>>>> needs to come from a verified source. On these systems, you can't
>>>>> mmap some writable memory, write to it, and then change it to
>>>>> executable.
>>>>
>>>> How is this implemented on those systems? AFAIK there's no kernel config
>>>> option that changes the semantics of mmap as you describe.
>>>
>>> That has nothing to do with mmap() semantics. You mmap() writeable memory
>>> and then you change the permissions via mprotect(). mprotect() calls into
>>> LSM and depending on policy and security model this will reject the
>>> request.
>>>
>>> Andy was pointing out that the SGX ioctl bypasses the LSM mechanics which
>>> is obviously a bad thing.
>>
>> We could modify the driver such that when you call ioctl EADD, the page
>> table permissions need to be the PAGEINFO.SECINFO.FLAGS | PROT_WRITE,
>> otherwise you get EPERM or so. After EADD, if you want, you can restrict
>> the page table permissions again using mprotect but the page table
>> permissions don't really matter for SGX.
>
> And the point of that is? That you still can cirumvent LSM for feeding
> executable code into SGX.
How? LSM would see that you're trying to map a page RWX so you can do
your ioctl?
> No, we are not making special cases and exceptions for SGX.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly? I don't think I was suggesting
anything like that.
--
Jethro Beekman | Fortanix
Powered by blists - more mailing lists