Message-ID: <20201106165107.GA52595@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 6 Nov 2020 18:51:07 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        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>,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, asapek@...gle.com, bp@...en8.de,
        cedric.xing@...el.com, chenalexchen@...gle.com,
        conradparker@...gle.com, cyhanish@...gle.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
        kai.svahn@...el.com, kmoy@...gle.com, ludloff@...gle.com,
        luto@...nel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com,
        puiterwijk@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        yaozhangx@...gle.com, mikko.ylinen@...el.com,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v40 10/24] mm: Add 'mprotect' hook to struct
 vm_operations_struct

On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 10:04:09AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 04:54:16PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
> > 
> > Background
> > ==========
> > 
> > 1. SGX enclave pages are populated with data by copying from normal memory
> >    via ioctl() (SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGES), which will be added later in
> >    this series.
> > 2. It is desirable to be able to restrict those normal memory data sources.
> >    For instance, to ensure that the source data is executable before
> >    copying data to an executable enclave page.
> > 3. Enclave page permissions are dynamic (just like normal permissions) and
> >    can be adjusted at runtime with mprotect().
> > 
> > This creates a problem because the original data source may have long since
> > vanished at the time when enclave page permissions are established (mmap()
> > or mprotect()).
> > 
> > The solution (elsewhere in this series) is to force enclaves creators to
> > declare their paging permission *intent* up front to the ioctl().  This
> > intent can me immediately compared to the source data???s mapping and
> > rejected if necessary.
> > 
> > The ???intent??? is also stashed off for later comparison with enclave
> > PTEs. This ensures that any future mmap()/mprotect() operations
> > performed by the enclave creator or done on behalf of the enclave
> > can be compared with the earlier declared permissions.
> > 
> > Problem
> > =======
> > 
> > There is an existing mmap() hook which allows SGX to perform this
> > permission comparison at mmap() time.  However, there is no corresponding
> > ->mprotect() hook.
> > 
> > Solution
> > ========
> > 
> > Add a vm_ops->mprotect() hook so that mprotect() operations which are
> > inconsistent with any page's stashed intent can be rejected by the driver.
> > 
> 
> I have not read the series so this is superficial only. That said...
> 
> > Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
> > Acked-by: Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@...cle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/mm.h | 3 +++
> >  mm/mprotect.c      | 5 ++++-
> >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index ef360fe70aaf..eb38eabc5039 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -559,6 +559,9 @@ struct vm_operations_struct {
> >  	void (*close)(struct vm_area_struct * area);
> >  	int (*split)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long addr);
> >  	int (*mremap)(struct vm_area_struct * area);
> > +	int (*mprotect)(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > +			struct vm_area_struct **pprev, unsigned long start,
> > +			unsigned long end, unsigned long newflags);
> 
> The first user of this uses the following information
> 
> 	ret = sgx_encl_may_map(vma->vm_private_data, start, end, newflags);
> 
> It only needs start, end and newflags. The pprev is passed in so the
> hook can call mprotect_fixup() which is redundant as the caller knows it
> should do that. I don't think an arbitrary driver should be responsible
> for poking too much into the mm internals to do the fixup because we do
> not know what other users of this hook might require in the future.
> 
> Hence, I would suggest that the hook receive the minimum possible
> information to do the permissions check for the first in-tree user. If
> it returns without failure then mm/mprotect.c would always do the fixup.
> 
> >  	vm_fault_t (*fault)(struct vm_fault *vmf);
> >  	vm_fault_t (*huge_fault)(struct vm_fault *vmf,
> >  			enum page_entry_size pe_size);
> > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > index 56c02beb6041..1fd4fa71ce16 100644
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -616,7 +616,10 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len,
> >  		tmp = vma->vm_end;
> >  		if (tmp > end)
> >  			tmp = end;
> > -		error = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags);
> > +		if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->mprotect)
> > +			error = vma->vm_ops->mprotect(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags);
> > +		else
> > +			error = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags);
> 
> That would then become
> 
> if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->mprotect)
> 	error = vma->vm_ops->mprotect(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags);
> if (!error)
> 	error = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags);
> 
> and mprotect_fixup would be removed from the driver.
> 
> While vm_operations_struct has borderline zero documentation, a hook for
> one in-kernel user should have a comment explaining what the semantics
> of the hook is -- what is it responsible for (permission check), what
> can it change (nothing), etc. Maybe something like
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Called by mprotect in the event driver-specific permission
> 	 * checks need to be made before the mprotect is finalised.
> 	 * No modifications should be done to the VMA, returns 0
> 	 * if the mprotect is permitted.
> 	 */
> 	int (*mprotect)(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> 		unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> 		unsigned long newflags);
> 
> If a future driver *does* need to poke deeper into the VM for mprotect
> then at least they'll have to explain why that's a good idea.

Both comments make sense to me. I'll refine this patch on Monday and
also "x86/sgx: Add SGX misc driver interface", which uses this callback.

Thanks a lot for valuable feedback!

> -- 
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs

/Jarkko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists