[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200928005347.GB6704@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 03:53:47 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
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,
"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 Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:53:35PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/25/20 12:43 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> That means that the intent argument (SGX_PROT_*) is currently unused.
> > No, the intent argument is used (eventually) by SGX's ->mprotect()
> > implementation, i.e. sgx_mprotect() enforces that the actual protections are a
> > subset of the declared/intended protections.
> >
> > If ->mprotect() is not merged, then it yes, it will be unused.
>
> OK, I think I've got it.
>
> I think I'm OK with adding ->mprotect(). As long as folks buy into the
> argument that intent needs to be checked at mmap() time, they obviously
> need to be checked at mprotect() too.
>
> Jarkko, if you want to try and rewrite the changelog, capturing the
> discussion here and reply, I think I can ack the resulting patch. I
> don't know if that will satisfy the request from Boris from an ack from
> a "mm person", but we can at least start there. :)
I think what it needs, based on what I've read, is the step by step
description of the EMODPE scenarion without this callback and with it.
I think other important thing to underline is that an LSM or any other
security measure can only do a sane decision when the enclave is loaded.
At that point we know the source (vm_file).
I.e. when you are doing mmap() or mprotect() you don't have that
information. The permissions kind of describe the contact made at that
point of time.
> Please be judicious in what you include in the changelog. There's been
> a lot of detritus in them. Let's keep it as short, sweet, simple and on
> topic as we can.
Of course.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists