linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v23 12/24] x86/sgx: Linux Enclave Driver

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: <20191101153238.GA2657@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 08:32:38 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com,
        serge.ayoun@...el.com, shay.katz-zamir@...el.com,
        haitao.huang@...el.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, kai.svahn@...el.com, bp@...en8.de,
        josh@...htriplett.org, luto@...nel.org, kai.huang@...el.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, cedric.xing@...el.com, puiterwijk@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v23 12/24] x86/sgx: Linux Enclave Driver

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:28:17AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 11/1/19 9:16 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >So, IIUC, that means that merging the driver will create a regression with
> >respect to LSM control over executable mappings that will only be
> >rectified at some future point in time if/when someone submits LSM hooks
> >or calls to existing hooks to restore such control.  That doesn't seem
> >like a good idea.  Why can't you include at least that basic level of
> >control now?  It is one thing to defer finer grained control or
> >SGX-specific access controls to the future - that I can understand.  But
> >introducing a regression in the existing controls is not really ok.
> 
> Unless you are arguing that the existing checks on mmap/mprotect of
> /dev/sgx/enclave are a coarse-grained approximation (effectively requiring
> WX to the file or execmem for any user of SGX).

Yes, that's the argument as running any enclave will require RWX access to
/dev/sgx/enclave.  EXECMEM won't trigger for SGX users as /dev/sgx/enclave
must be MAP_SHARED and it's a non-private file (not backed by anonymous
inode, in case I got the file terminology wrong).