linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86/sgx: Do not limit EAUG'd pages by pre-initialization policy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YiLEHBlXAz+sUheO@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 5 Mar 2022 03:59:56 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel@...fian.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/sgx: Do not limit EAUG'd pages by
 pre-initialization policy

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 11:09:36AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On 3/3/2022 7:39 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Pre-initialization policy is meant for EADD'd pages because they are
> > part of the enclave identity. It's a good practice to not let touch the
> > permissions after initialization, and does provide guarantees to e.g.
> > LSM's about the enclave.
> 
> I disagree. There are scenarios where it is indeed good practice to
> modify the permissions after initialization.  For example, pages that
> may be used for relocatable code can start with RWX permissions but once
> the pages have been populated with the code they should be able to restrict
> permissions to RX only. It is not good practice to require RWX permission
> over their entire lifetime. Ideally pages should only have the lowest
> permissions possible. 

The only permissions kernel has real control is PTE permissions when
the enclave has been initialized.

You are introducing an artificial limitation with vm_run_prot_bits
that makes e.g. EMODPE more costly for no good reason, and in-kernel
variable has nothing to do with the permissions. They are located
in EPCM.

> Supporting the modification of permissions after initialization enables
> the security conscious enclave owner to support the security
> principle of least privilege.

1. Kernel has the control of PTE permissions.
2. Enclave has the control of EPCM permissions.

vm_run_prot_bits does not help making anything more secure.

BR, Jarkko