Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 04:58:51 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Cc:     Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>,
        "Dhanraj, Vijay" <vijay.dhanraj@intel.com>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        "Zhang, Cathy" <cathy.zhang@intel.com>,
        "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@intel.com>,
        "Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@intel.com>,
        "Shanahan, Mark" <mark.shanahan@intel.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        nathaniel@profian.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 16/32] x86/sgx: Support restricting of enclave page
 permissions
Message-ID: <Yi6va4dCaljiQ1WQ@iki.fi>
References: <4ce06608b5351f65f4e6bc6fc87c88a71215a2e7.1644274683.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com>
 <YhLhoMFPyOFZ2fsX@iki.fi>
 <DM8PR11MB55917F499CDF4CC7D426B0A7F63C9@DM8PR11MB5591.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <YimWaAqEnXHbLdjh@iki.fi>
 <op.1itu5vkewjvjmi@hhuan26-mobl1.mshome.net>
 <Yis8LV99mORcLYs6@iki.fi>
 <Yis9rA8uC/0bmWCF@iki.fi>
 <97565fed-dc67-bab1-28d4-c40201c9f055@intel.com>
 <Yi6tPLLt9Q+ailQ3@iki.fi>
 <Yi6tinbF+Y7a66eQ@iki.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yi6tinbF+Y7a66eQ@iki.fi>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:50:56AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:49:37AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 09:53:29AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > 
> > > I saw Haitao's note that EMODPE requires "Read access permitted by enclave".
> > > This motivates that EMODPR->PROT_NONE should not be allowed since it would
> > > not be possible to relax permissions (run EMODPE) after that. Even so, I
> > > also found in the SDM that EACCEPT has the note "Read access permitted
> > > by enclave". That seems to indicate that EMODPR->PROT_NONE is not practical
> > > from that perspective either since the enclave will not be able to
> > > EACCEPT the change. Does that match your understanding?
> > 
> > Yes, PROT_NONE should not be allowed.
> > 
> > This is however the real problem.
> > 
> > The current kernel patch set has inconsistent API and EMODPR ioctl is
> > simply unacceptable. It  also requires more concurrency management from
> > user space run-time, which would be heck a lot easier to do in the kernel.
> > 
> > If you really want EMODPR as ioctl, then for consistencys sake, then EAUG
> > should be too. Like this when things go opposite directions, this patch set
> > plain and simply will not work out.
> > 
> > I would pick EAUG's strategy from these two as it requires half the back
> > calls to host from an enclave. I.e. please combine mprotect() and EMODPR,
> > either in the #PF handler or as part of mprotect(), which ever suits you
> > best.
> > 
> > I'll try demonstrate this with two examples.
> > 
> > mmap() could go something like this() (simplified):
> > 1. Execution #UD's to SYSCALL.
> > 2. Host calls enclave's mmap() handler with mmap() parameters.
> > 3. Enclave up-calls host's mmap().
> > 4. Loops the range with EACCEPTCOPY.
> > 
> > mprotect() has to be done like this:
> > 1. Execution #UD's to SYSCALL.
> > 2. Host calls enclave's mprotect() handler.
> > 3. Enclave up-calls host's mprotect().
> > 4. Enclave up-calls host's ioctl() to SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_PERMISSIONS.
> > 3. Loops the range with EACCEPT.
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   5. Loops the range with EACCEPT + EMODPE.
> 
> > This is just terrible IMHO. I hope these examples bring some insight.

E.g. in Enarx we have to add a special up-call (so called enarxcall in
intermediate that we call sallyport, which provides shared buffer to
communicate with the enclave) just for reseting the range with PROT_READ.
Feel very redundant, adds ugly cruft and is completely opposite strategy to
what you've chosen to do with EAUG, which is I think correct choice as far
as API is concerned.

BR, Jarkko