linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC 45/62] mm: Add the encrypt

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]

Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:08:27 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 45/62] mm: Add the encrypt_mprotect() system call
 for MKTME

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 05:32:31PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:51:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:44:05PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> snip
> > >  /*
> > > - * When pkey==NO_KEY we get legacy mprotect behavior here.
> > > + * do_mprotect_ext() supports the legacy mprotect behavior plus extensions
> > > + * for Protection Keys and Memory Encryption Keys. These extensions are
> > > + * mutually exclusive and the behavior is:

Well, here it states that the extentions are mutually exclusive.

> > > + *	(pkey==NO_KEY && keyid==NO_KEY) ==> legacy mprotect
> > > + *	(pkey is valid)  ==> legacy mprotect plus Protection Key extensions
> > > + *	(keyid is valid) ==> legacy mprotect plus Encryption Key extensions
> > >   */
> > >  static int do_mprotect_ext(unsigned long start, size_t len,
> > > -		unsigned long prot, int pkey)
> > > +			   unsigned long prot, int pkey, int keyid)
> > >  {
> 
> snip
> 
> >
> > I've missed the part where pkey && keyid results in a WARN or error or
> > whatever.
> > 
> I wasn't so sure about that since do_mprotect_ext()
> is the call 'behind' the system calls. 
> 
> legacy mprotect always calls with: NO_KEY, NO_KEY
> pkey_mprotect always calls with:  pkey, NO_KEY
> encrypt_mprotect always calls with  NO_KEY, keyid
> 
> Would a check on those arguments be debug only 
> to future proof this?

But you then don't check that, anywhere, afaict.