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: LEJGndDXX/lEU9pKKg6ddc5ARSGn9F0BOWh6xaYQiU/EIEiPT49fQ2t0G3jMbW6jNyObYr6lxs
 httzdUELN24w==
IronPort-SDR: D8WaEYIYc3W8ZM2k34p1YdK1bF/oWqAJliXPiHexrXnNuPFTPIHAGqmyfqm2ztQtLxq5Y4VJ0M
 ZUL7HbGi78ow==
Date:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 01:02:59 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>,
        Chunyang Hui <sanqian.hcy@antfin.com>,
        Jordan Hand <jorhand@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>,
        Seth Moore <sethmo@google.com>,
        Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@oracle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, asapek@google.com, bp@alien8.de,
        cedric.xing@intel.com, chenalexchen@google.com,
        conradparker@google.com, cyhanish@google.com,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, haitao.huang@intel.com, kai.huang@intel.com,
        kai.svahn@intel.com, kmoy@google.com, ludloff@google.com,
        luto@kernel.org, nhorman@redhat.com, puiterwijk@redhat.com,
        rientjes@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, yaozhangx@google.com,
        mikko.ylinen@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v39 11/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX enclave driver
Message-ID: <20201004220259.GB43926@linux.intel.com>
References: <20201003045059.665934-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20201003045059.665934-12-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20201003195440.GD20115@casper.infradead.org>
 <20201004215049.GA43926@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201004215049.GA43926@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 12:51:00AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 08:54:40PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:50:46AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > +	XA_STATE(xas, &encl->page_array, idx_start);
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Disallow READ_IMPLIES_EXEC tasks as their VMA permissions might
> > > +	 * conflict with the enclave page permissions.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC)
> > > +		return -EACCES;
> > > +
> > > +	xas_for_each(&xas, page, idx_end)
> > > +		if (!page || (~page->vm_max_prot_bits & vm_prot_bits))
> > > +			return -EACCES;
> > 
> > You're iterating the array without holding any lock that the XArray knows
> > about.  If you're OK with another thread adding/removing pages behind your
> > back, or there's a higher level lock (the mmap_sem?) protecting the XArray
> > from being modified while you walk it, then hold the rcu_read_lock()
> > while walking the array.  Otherwise you can prevent modification by
> > calling xas_lock(&xas) and xas_unlock()..
> 
> I backtracked this. The locks have been there from v21-v35. This is a
> refactoring mistake in radix_tree to xarray migration happened in v36.
> It's by no means intentional.
> 
> What is shoukd take is encl->lock.
> 
> The loop was pre-v36 like:
> 
> 	idx_start = PFN_DOWN(start);
> 	idx_end = PFN_DOWN(end - 1);
> 
> 	for (idx = idx_start; idx <= idx_end; ++idx) {
> 		mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
> 		page = radix_tree_lookup(&encl->page_tree, idx);
> 		mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
> 
> 		if (!page || (~page->vm_max_prot_bits & vm_prot_bits))
> 			return -EACCES;
> 	}
> 
> Looking at xarray.h and filemap.c, I'm thinking something along the
> lines of:
> 
> 	for (idx = idx_start; idx <= idx_end; ++idx) {
> 		mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
> 		page = xas_find(&xas, idx + 1);
                                      ~~~~~~~
				      idx

> 		mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
> 
> 		if (!page || (~page->vm_max_prot_bits & vm_prot_bits))
> 			return -EACCES;
> 	}
> 
> Does this look about right?

/Jarkko