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: <DFE03E0C-694A-4289-B416-29CDC2644F94@amacapital.net>
Date:   Fri, 17 May 2019 10:43:01 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        "selinux@...r.kernel.org" <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.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 May 17, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:37:40PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>> On 5/17/19 12:20 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/19 11:09 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> I think we may want to change the SGX API to alloc an anon inode for each
>>>> enclave instead of hanging every enclave off of the /dev/sgx/enclave
>>>> inode.
>>>> Because /dev/sgx/enclave is NOT private, SELinux's file_map_prot_check()
>>>> will only require FILE__WRITE and FILE__EXECUTE to mprotect() enclave
>>>> VMAs
>>>> to RWX.  Backing each enclave with an anon inode will make SELinux treat
>>>> EPC memory like anonymous mappings, which is what we want (I think), e.g.
>>>> making *any* EPC page executable will require PROCESS__EXECMEM (SGX is
>>>> 64-bit only at this point, so SELinux will always have default_noexec).
>>> 
>>> I don't think we want to require EXECMEM (or equivalently both FILE__WRITE
>>> and FILE__EXECUTE to /dev/sgx/enclave) for making any EPC page executable,
>>> only if the page is also writable or previously modified.  The intent is
>>> to prevent arbitrary code execution without EXECMEM (or
>>> FILE__WRITE|FILE__EXECUTE), while still allowing enclaves to be created
>>> without EXECMEM as long as the EPC page mapping is only ever mapped RX and
>>> its initial contents came from an unmodified file mapping that was
>>> PROT_EXEC (and hence already checked via FILE__EXECUTE).
> 
> The idea is that by providing an SGX ioctl() to propagate VMA permissions
> from a source VMA, EXECMEM wouldn't be required to make an EPC page
> executable.  E.g. userspace establishes an enclave in non-EPC memory from
> an unmodified file (with FILE__EXECUTE perms), and the uses the SGX ioctl()
> to copy the contents and permissions into EPC memory.
> 
>> Also, just to be clear, there is nothing inherently better about checking
>> EXECMEM instead of checking both FILE__WRITE and FILE__EXECUTE to the
>> /dev/sgx/enclave inode, so I wouldn't switch to using anon inodes for that
>> reason.  Using anon inodes also unfortunately disables SELinux inode-based
>> checking since we no longer have any useful inode information, so you'd lose
>> out on SELinux ioctl whitelisting on those enclave inodes if that matters.
> 
> The problem is that all enclaves are associated with a single inode, i.e.
> /dev/sgx/enclave.  /dev/sgx/enclave is a char device whose purpose is to
> provide ioctls() and to allow mmap()'ing EPC memory.  In no way is it
> associated with the content that actually gets loaded into EPC memory.
> 
> The actual file that contains the enclave's contents (assuming the enclave
> came from a file) is a separate regular file that the SGX subsystem never
> sees.
> 
> AIUI, having FILE__WRITE and FILE__EXECUTE on /dev/sgx/enclave would allow
> *any* enclave/process to map EPC as RWX.  Moving to anon inodes and thus
> PROCESS__EXECMEM achieves per-process granularity.

How does anon_inode make any difference?  Anon_inode is not the same thing as anon_vma.