linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v40 10/24] mm: Add 'mprotect' hook to struct vm_operations

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]

Message-ID: <5c22300c-0956-48ed-578d-00cf62cb5c09@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:31:19 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>
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,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v40 10/24] mm: Add 'mprotect' hook to struct
 vm_operations_struct

On 11/12/20 12:58 PM, Dr. Greg wrote:
> @@ -270,11 +270,10 @@ static int sgx_vma_mprotect(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  			    struct vm_area_struct **pprev, unsigned long start,
>  			    unsigned long end, unsigned long newflags)
>  {
> -	int ret;
> +	struct sgx_encl *encl = vma->vm_private_data;
>  
> -	ret = sgx_encl_may_map(vma->vm_private_data, start, end, newflags);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> +	if ( test_bit(SGX_ENCL_INITIALIZED, &encl->flags) )
> +		return -EACCES;
>  
>  	return mprotect_fixup(vma, pprev, start, end, newflags);
>  }

This rules out mprotect() on running enclaves.  Does that break any
expectations from enclave authors, or take away capabilities that folks
need?