linux-kernel - Re: SGX vs LSM (Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support)

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: <CALCETrX2ovRx3Rre+1_xC-q6CiybyLjQ-gmB4FZF_qCZ-Qd+4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 16:13:15 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.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>,
        "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: SGX vs LSM (Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support)

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:46 PM James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > > Why not just use an xattr, like security.sgx ?
> >
> > Wouldn't this make it so that only someone with CAP_MAC_ADMIN could
> > install an enclave?  I think that this decision should be left up the
> > administrator, and it should be easy to set up a loose policy where
> > anyone can load whatever enclave they want.  That's what would happen
> > in my proposal if there was no LSM loaded or of the LSM policy didn't
> > restrict what .sigstruct files were acceptable.
> >
>
> You could try user.sigstruct, which does not require any privs.
>

I don't think I understand your proposal.  What file would this
attribute be on?  What would consume it?

I'm imagining that there's some enclave in a file
crypto_thingy.enclave.  There's also a file crypto_thingy.sigstruct.
crypto_thingy.enclave has type lib_t or similar so that it's
executable.  crypto_thingy.sigstruct has type sgx_sigstruct_t.  The
enclave loader does, in effect:

void *source_data = mmap(crypto_thingy.enclave, PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, ...);
int sigstruct_fd = open("crypto_thingy.sigstruct", O_RDONLY);
int enclave_fd = open("/dev/sgx/enclave", O_RDWR);

ioctl(enclave_fd, SGX_IOC_ADD_SOME_DATA, source_data + source_offset,
enclave_offset, len, ...);
ioctl(enclave_fd, SGX_IOC_ADD_SOME_DATA, source_data + source_offset2,
enclave_offset2, len, ...);
etc.

/* Here's where LSMs get to check that the sigstruct is acceptable.
The CPU will check that the sigstruct matches the enclave. */
ioctl(enclave_fd, SGX_INIT_THE_ENCLAVE, sigstruct_fd);

/* Actually map the thing */
mmap(enclave_fd RO section, PROT_READ, ...);
mmap(enclave_fd RW section, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, ...);
mmap(enclave_fd RX section, PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, ...);

/* This should fail unless EXECMOD is available, I think */
mmap(enclave_fd RWX section, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC);

And the idea here is that, if the .enclave file isn't mapped
PROT_EXEC, then mmapping the RX section will also require EXECMEM or
EXECMOD.