[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1547601988.128687.1604411534845@office.mailbox.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:52:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Idan Yaniv <idan.yaniv@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create
"secret" memory areas
> On 11/02/2020 4:40 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Isn't memfd_secret currently *unnecessarily* designed to be a "one task
> > feature"? memfd_secret fulfills exactly two (generic) features:
> >
> > - address space isolation from kernel (aka SECRET_EXCLUSIVE, not in kernel's
> > direct map) - hide from kernel, great
> > - disabling processor's memory caches against speculative-execution vulnerabilities
> > (spectre and friends, aka SECRET_UNCACHED), also great
> >
> > But, what about the following use-case: implementing a hardened IPC mechanism
> > where even the kernel is not aware of any data and optionally via SECRET_UNCACHED
> > even the hardware caches are bypassed! With the patches we are so close to
> > achieving this.
> >
> > How? Shared, SECRET_EXCLUSIVE and SECRET_UNCACHED mmaped pages for IPC
> > involved tasks required to know this mapping (and memfd_secret fd). After IPC
> > is done, tasks can copy sensitive data from IPC pages into memfd_secret()
> > pages, un-sensitive data can be used/copied everywhere.
>
> As long as the task share the file descriptor, they can share the
> secretmem pages, pretty much like normal memfd.
Including process_vm_readv() and process_vm_writev()? Let's take a hypothetical
"dbus-daemon-secure" service that receives data from process A and wants to
copy/distribute it to data areas of N other processes. Much like dbus but without
SOCK_DGRAM rather direct copy into secretmem/mmap pages (ring-buffer). Should be
possible, right?
> > One missing piece is still the secure zeroization of the page(s) if the
> > mapping is closed by last process to guarantee a secure cleanup. This can
> > probably done as an general mmap feature, not coupled to memfd_secret() and
> > can be done independently ("reverse" MAP_UNINITIALIZED feature).
>
> There are "init_on_alloc" and "init_on_free" kernel parameters that
> enable zeroing of the pages on alloc and on free globally.
> Anyway, I'll add zeroing of the freed memory to secretmem.
Great, this allows page-specific (thus runtime-performance-optimized) zeroing
of secured pages. init_on_free lowers the performance to much and is not precice
enough.
Hagen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists