Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: glru2NjHAqeLb9eMFKK5uSxfskdQU5n//BnA/v5vG/YxRC58ax38nqC75wLbpux/g120Jq5xd+
 gIre5RnCqTCw==
IronPort-SDR: IsOo2m5hKDJWvB8cLxXv2tSJTgbWHqTSHwVmntgbu4ZJeYgSkqhJZFzNg96HRz/pCPc/2/jOMh
 iee/vjZ65KWg==
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:30:04 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     "Dr. Greg" <greg@enjellic.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        nhorman@redhat.com, npmccallum@redhat.com, haitao.huang@intel.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        kai.svahn@intel.com, bp@alien8.de, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        luto@kernel.org, kai.huang@intel.com, rientjes@google.com,
        cedric.xing@intel.com, puiterwijk@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v29 00/20] Intel SGX foundations
Message-ID: <20200429153004.GD15992@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200421215316.56503-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20200426165753.GA11046@wind.enjellic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200426165753.GA11046@wind.enjellic.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:57:53AM -0500, Dr. Greg wrote:
> In closing, it is important to note that the proposed SGX driver is
> not available as a module.  This effectively excludes any alternative
> implementations of the driver without replacement of the kernel at
> large.

No it doesn't.  The SGX subsytem won't allocate EPC pages unless userspace
creates an enclave, i.e. preventing unprivileged userspace from accessing
/dev/sgx/enclave will allow loading an alternative out-of-tree SGX module.
Yes, SGX sanitizes the EPC on boot, but that's arguably a good thing for
out-of-tree modules.

And if you want to get crafty and squash in-kernel SGX altogether, boot
with "clearcpuid=<SGX_LC>" and/or "clearcpuid=<SGX>" to disable in-kernel
support entirely.  SGX won't be correctly enumerated in /proc/cpuinfo
relative to the existence of an out-of-tree module, but that seems like a
very minor issue if you're running with a completely different SGX driver.

> It also means that any platform, with SGX hardware support,
> running a kernel with this driver, has the potential for the
> security/privacy issues noted above.

Unless I'm mistaken, /dev/sgx is root-only by default.  There are far
scarier mechanisms available to root for hosing the system.

> If key based policy management is not allowed, then the driver needs
> to be re-architected to have modular support so that alternative
> implementations or the absence of any driver support are at least
> tenable.

As above, using an alternative implementation is teneble, albeit a bit
kludgy.