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;
Message-ID: <000cfaa0a9a09f07c5e50e573393cda301d650c9.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 07/10] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to
 create "secret" memory areas
From:   James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
Reply-To: jejb@linux.ibm.com
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:04 -0800
In-Reply-To: <dfd7db5c-a8c7-0676-59f8-70aa6bcaabe7@redhat.com>
References: <20210214091954.GM242749@kernel.org>
         <052DACE9-986B-424C-AF8E-D6A4277DE635@redhat.com>
         <244f86cba227fa49ca30cd595c4e5538fe2f7c2b.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <YCo7TqUnBdgJGkwN@dhcp22.suse.cz>
         <be1d821d3f0aec24ad13ca7126b4359822212eb0.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <YCrJjYmr7A2nO6lA@dhcp22.suse.cz>
         <12c3890b233c8ec8e3967352001a7b72a8e0bfd0.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <dfd7db5c-a8c7-0676-59f8-70aa6bcaabe7@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2021-02-16 at 17:34 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.02.21 17:25, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 20:20 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > >    What kind of flags are we talking about and why would that
> > > > > be a problem with memfd_create interface? Could you be more
> > > > > specific please?
> > > > 
> > > > You mean what were the ioctl flags in the patch series linked
> > > > above? They were SECRETMEM_EXCLUSIVE and SECRETMEM_UNCACHED in
> > > > patch 3/5.
> > > 
> > > OK I see. How many potential modes are we talking about? A few or
> > > potentially many?
> >   
> > Well I initially thought there were two (uncached or not) until you
> > came up with the migratable or non-migratable, which affects the
> > security properties.  But now there's also potential for hardware
> > backing, like mktme,  described by flags as well.  I suppose you
> > could also use RDT to restrict which cache the data goes into: say
> > L1 but not L2 on to lessen the impact of fully uncached (although
> > the big thrust of uncached was to blunt hyperthread side
> > channels).  So there is potential for quite a large expansion even
> > though I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the modes people have
> > thought about turn out not to be very effective in the field.
> 
> Thanks for the insight. I remember that even the "uncached" parts
> was effectively nacked by x86 maintainers (I might be wrong).

It wasn't liked by x86 maintainers, no.  Plus there's no
architecturally standard mechanism for making a page uncached and, as
the arm people pointed out, sometimes no way of ensuring it's never
cached.

>  For the other parts, the question is what we actually want to let
> user space configure.
> 
> Being able to specify "Very secure" "maximum secure" "average
> secure"  all doesn't really make sense to me.

Well, it doesn't to me either unless the user feels a cost/benefit, so
if max cost $100 per invocation and average cost nothing, most people
would chose average unless they had a very good reason not to.  In your
migratable model, if we had separate limits for non-migratable and
migratable, with non-migratable being set low to prevent exhaustion,
max secure becomes a highly scarce resource, whereas average secure is
abundant then having the choice might make sense.

>  The discussion regarding migratability only really popped up because
> this is a user-visible thing and not being able to migrate can be a
> real problem (fragmentation, ZONE_MOVABLE, ...).

I think the biggest use will potentially come from hardware
acceleration.  If it becomes simple to add say encryption to a secret
page with no cost, then no flag needed.  However, if we only have a
limited number of keys so once we run out no more encrypted memory then
it becomes a costly resource and users might want a choice of being
backed by encryption or not.

James