Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Thu, 17 Mar 2022 06:30:29 +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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 16/32] x86/sgx: Support restricting of enclave page
 permissions
Message-ID: <YjK5ZWJRQX+lyUxS@iki.fi>
References: <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>
 <YiuQx+X9UQ2l22un@iki.fi>
 <e1c04077-0165-c5ec-53be-7fd732965e80@intel.com>
 <Yi65sM+yCvZU0/am@iki.fi>
 <7ff5e217-4042-764b-3d32-49314f00ff54@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7ff5e217-4042-764b-3d32-49314f00ff54@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 08:32:28AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On 3/13/2022 8:42 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:28:27AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> Supporting permission restriction in an ioctl() enables the runtime to manage
> >> the enclave memory without needing to map it.
> > 
> > Which is opposite what you do in EAUG. You can also augment pages without
> > needing the map them. Sure you get that capability, but it is quite useless
> > in practice.
> > 
> >> I have considered the idea of supporting the permission restriction with
> >> mprotect() but as you can see in this response I did not find it to be
> >> practical.
> > 
> > Where is it practical? What is your application? How is it practical to
> > delegate the concurrency management of a split mprotect() to user space?
> > How do we get rid off a useless up-call to the host?
> > 
> 
> The email you responded to contained many obstacles against using mprotect()
> but you chose to ignore them and snipped them all from your response. Could
> you please address the issues instead of dismissing them? 

I did read the whole email but did not see anything that would make a case
for fully exposed EMODPR, or having asymmetrical towards how EAUG works.

I had the same discussion with Haitao about PROT_NONE earlier, and am
fully aware that PROT_READ is required.

BR, Jarkko