linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v29 00/20] Intel SGX foundations

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:   Thu, 7 May 2020 17:40:11 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>, npmccallum@...hat.com,
        "Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>, puiterwijk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v29 00/20] Intel SGX foundations

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:30 AM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:57:53AM -0500, Dr. Greg wrote:
> > In closing, it is important to note that the proposed SGX driver is
> > not available as a module.  This effectively excludes any alternative
> > implementations of the driver without replacement of the kernel at
> > large.
>
> No it doesn't.  The SGX subsytem won't allocate EPC pages unless userspace
> creates an enclave, i.e. preventing unprivileged userspace from accessing
> /dev/sgx/enclave will allow loading an alternative out-of-tree SGX module.
> Yes, SGX sanitizes the EPC on boot, but that's arguably a good thing for
> out-of-tree modules.
>
> And if you want to get crafty and squash in-kernel SGX altogether, boot
> with "clearcpuid=<SGX_LC>" and/or "clearcpuid=<SGX>" to disable in-kernel
> support entirely.  SGX won't be correctly enumerated in /proc/cpuinfo
> relative to the existence of an out-of-tree module, but that seems like a
> very minor issue if you're running with a completely different SGX driver.
>
> > It also means that any platform, with SGX hardware support,
> > running a kernel with this driver, has the potential for the
> > security/privacy issues noted above.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, /dev/sgx is root-only by default.  There are far
> scarier mechanisms available to root for hosing the system.
>
> > If key based policy management is not allowed, then the driver needs
> > to be re-architected to have modular support so that alternative
> > implementations or the absence of any driver support are at least
> > tenable.
>
> As above, using an alternative implementation is teneble, albeit a bit
> kludgy.

It is worth noting that, if someone actualy does this, and a future
kernel patch breaks it, the upstream developers are unlikely to
apologize or even feel particularly bad.  See, for example, the
current situation with VirtualBox.