[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200924215815.GB119995@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:58:15 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@...cle.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
asapek@...gle.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>, chenalexchen@...gle.com,
Conrad Parker <conradparker@...gle.com>, cyhanish@...gle.com,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, Keith Moyer <kmoy@...gle.com>,
Christian Ludloff <ludloff@...gle.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>,
Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, yaozhangx@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v38 10/24] mm: Add vm_ops->mprotect()
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:28:54PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:11:37PM -0500, Haitao Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 08:50:56 -0500, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >I'll categorically deny noexec in the next patch set version.
> > >
> > >/Jarkko
> >
> > There are use cases supported currently in which enclave binary is received
> > via IPC/RPC and held in buffers before EADD. Denying noexec altogether would
> > break those, right?
>
> No. noexec only applies to file-backed VMAs, what you're describing is loading
> an enclave from an anon VMA, which will still have VM_MAYEXEC.
>
> I believe you're thinking of SELinux's EXECMEM, which is required to execute
> from anonymous memory, and which we talked about (more than once) applying to
> SGX enclaves.
>
> That being said, I still dislike the idea of requiring VM_MAYEXEC, it's a hack
> that doesn't really buy us much, if anything.
I think it makes sense as long as it is not half-way there solution.
Either require it for the full binary or not at all. I'm fine with
either.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists