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;
Date:   Sat, 24 Oct 2020 14:40:04 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <kernel.org@kernel.org>
To:     Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@oracle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, asapek@google.com, bp@alien8.de,
        cedric.xing@intel.com, chenalexchen@google.com,
        conradparker@google.com, cyhanish@google.com,
        haitao.huang@intel.com, kai.huang@intel.com, kai.svahn@intel.com,
        kmoy@google.com, ludloff@google.com, nhorman@redhat.com,
        npmccallum@redhat.com, puiterwijk@redhat.com, rientjes@google.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        yaozhangx@google.com, mikko.ylinen@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v39 15/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_PROVISION
Message-ID: <20201024114004.GB29427@kernel.org>
References: <20201003045059.665934-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20201003045059.665934-16-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <7bb4ff7b-0778-ad70-1fe0-6e1db284d45a@intel.com>
 <20201023101736.GG168477@linux.intel.com>
 <5dc74a43-d738-3711-6967-59d8264a5ee4@fortanix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5dc74a43-d738-3711-6967-59d8264a5ee4@fortanix.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 04:23:55PM +0200, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> On 2020-10-23 12:17, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 02:19:26PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 10/2/20 9:50 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> + * Failure to explicitly request access to a restricted attribute will cause
> >>> + * sgx_ioc_enclave_init() to fail.  Currently, the only restricted attribute
> >>> + * is access to the PROVISION_KEY.
> >>
> >> Could we also justify why access is restricted, please?  Maybe:
> >>
> >> 	Access is restricted because PROVISION_KEY is burned uniquely
> >> 	into each each processor, making it a perfect unique identifier
> >> 	with privacy and fingerprinting implications.
> >>
> >> Are there any other reasons for doing it this way?
> > 
> > AFAIK, if I interperet the SDM correctl, PROVISION_KEY and
> > PROVISION_SEALING_KEY also have random salt added, i.e. they change
> > every boot cycle.
> > 
> > There is "RAND = yes" on those keys in Table 40-64 of Intel SDM volume
> > 3D :-)
> > 
> 
> This is nonsense. The whole point of sealing keys is that they don't
> change every boot. If did they they'd have no value over enclave
> memory. RAND means that the KEYID field from the KEYREQUEST is
> included in the derivation (as noted in the source row of the table
> you looked at).

I just looked that the column name is RAND, the row is called "Provision
key" and the cell has "Yes" in it.

> --
> Jethro Beekman | Fortanix

/Jarkko