Message-ID: <dbaf4695-df60-3ce9-cbf7-b44d7100da2f@tycho.nsa.gov>
Date:   Fri, 17 May 2019 15:20:46 -0400
From:   Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "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 5/17/19 2:05 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 5/17/19 1:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 17, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/17/19 12:20 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>>> On 5/17/19 11:09 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 09:53:06AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/19 6:23 PM, Xing, Cedric wrote:
>>>>>>> I thought EXECMOD applied to files (and memory mappings backed by 
>>>>>>> them) but
>>>>>>> I was probably wrong. It sounds like EXECMOD applies to the whole 
>>>>>>> process so
>>>>>>> would allow all pages within a process's address space to be 
>>>>>>> modified then
>>>>>>> executed, regardless the backing files. Am I correct this time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you were correct the first time I think; EXECMOD is used to 
>>>>>> control
>>>>>> whether a process can make executable a private file mapping that has
>>>>>> previously been modified (e.g. text relocation); it is a special 
>>>>>> case to
>>>>>> support text relocations without having to allow full EXECMEM 
>>>>>> (i.e. execute
>>>>>> arbitrary memory).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SELinux checks relevant to W^X include:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - EXECMEM: mmap/mprotect PROT_EXEC an anonymous mapping 
>>>>>> (regardless of
>>>>>> PROT_WRITE, since we know the content has to have been written at 
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> point) or a private file mapping that is also PROT_WRITE.
>>>>>> - EXECMOD: mprotect PROT_EXEC a private file mapping that has been
>>>>>> previously modified, typically for text relocations,
>>>>>> - FILE__WRITE: mmap/mprotect PROT_WRITE a shared file mapping,
>>>>>> - FILE__EXECUTE: mmap/mprotect PROT_EXEC a file mapping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (ignoring EXECSTACK and EXECHEAP here since they aren't really 
>>>>>> relevant to
>>>>>> this discussion)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you want to ensure W^X, then you wouldn't allow EXECMEM for the
>>>>>> process, EXECMOD by the process to any file, and the combination 
>>>>>> of both
>>>>>> FILE__WRITE and FILE__EXECUTE by the process to any file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the /dev/sgx/enclave mappings are MAP_SHARED and you aren't 
>>>>>> using an
>>>>>> anonymous inode, then I would expect that only the FILE__WRITE and
>>>>>> FILE__EXECUTE checks are relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, I was just typing this up in a different thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> How can that work?  Unless the API changes fairly radically, users 
>> fundamentally need to both write and execute the enclave.  Some of it 
>> will be written only from already executable pages, and some privilege 
>> should be needed to execute any enclave page that was not loaded like 
>> this.
> 
> I'm not sure what the API is. Let's say they do something like this:
> 
> fd = open("/dev/sgx/enclave", O_RDONLY);
> addr = mmap(NULL, size, PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> stuff addr into ioctl args
> ioctl(fd, ENCLAVE_CREATE, &ioctlargs);
> ioctl(fd, ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGE, &ioctlargs);
> ioctl(fd, ENCLAVE_INIT, &ioctlargs);
> 
> The important points are that they do not open /dev/sgx/enclave with 
> write access (otherwise they will trigger FILE__WRITE at open time, and 
> later encounter FILE__EXECUTE as well during mmap, thereby requiring 
> both to be allowed to /dev/sgx/enclave), and that they do not request 
> PROT_WRITE to the resulting mapping (otherwise they will trigger 
> FILE__WRITE at mmap time).  Then only FILE__READ and FILE__EXECUTE are 
> required to /dev/sgx/enclave in policy.
> 
> If they switch to an anon inode, then any mmap PROT_EXEC of the opened 
> file will trigger an EXECMEM check, at least as currently implemented, 
> as we have no useful backing inode information.

FWIW, looking at the selftest for SGX in the patch series, they open 
/dev/sgx/enclave O_RDWR (probably not necessary?) and mmap the open file 
RWX.  If that is necessary then I'd rather it show up as FILE__WRITE and 
FILE__EXECUTE to /dev/sgx/enclave instead of EXECMEM, so that we can 
allow the process the ability to perform that mmap without allowing it 
to make other mappings WX.  So staying with the single /dev/sgx/enclave 
inode is better in that regard.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists