From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
Cedric Xing <cedric.xing@intel.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
selinux@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
nhorman@redhat.com, pmccallum@redhat.com, "Ayoun,
Serge" <serge.ayoun@intel.com>,
"Katz-zamir, Shay" <shay.katz-zamir@intel.com>,
"Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
"Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@intel.com>,
Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] LSM/x86/sgx: Implement SGX specific hooks in SELinux
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:02:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190612220242.GJ20308@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWQT3AG+-OKBOzuw-a6VPApkNYsKqZiBmS56-b-72bfYQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:30:20PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:02 PM Sean Christopherson
> <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > 1. Require userspace to explicitly specificy (maximal) enclave page
> > permissions at build time. The enclave page permissions are provided
> > to, and checked by, LSMs at enclave build time.
> >
> > Pros: Low-complexity kernel implementation, straightforward auditing
> > Cons: Sullies the SGX UAPI to some extent, may increase complexity of
> > SGX2 enclave loaders.
>
> In my notes, this works like this. This is similar, but not
> identical, to what Sean has been sending out.
...
> mmap() and mprotect() enforce the following rules:
>
> - Deny if a PROT_ flag is requested but the corresponding ALLOW_ flag
> is not set for all pages in question.
>
> - Deny if PROT_WRITE, PROT_EXEC, and DENY_WX are all set.
>
> - Deny if PROT_EXEC, ALLOW_WRITE, and DENY_X_IF_ALLOW_WRITE are all set.
>
> mprotect() and mmap() do *not* call SGX-specific LSM hooks to ask for
> permission, although they can optionally call an LSM hook if they hit one of
> the -EPERM cases for auditing purposes.
IMO, #1 only makes sense if it's stripped down to avoid auditing and
locking complications, i.e. gets a pass/fail at security_enclave_load()
and clears VM_MAY* flags during mmap(). If we want WX and W->X to be
differentiated by security_enclave_init() as opposed to
security_enclave_load(), then we should just scrap #1.
> I think this model works quite well in an SGX1 world. The main thing
> that makes me uneasy about this model is that, in SGX2, it requires
> that an SGX2-compatible enclave loader must pre-declare to the kernel
> whether it intends for its dynamically allocated memory to be
> ALLOW_EXEC. If ALLOW_EXEC is set but not actually needed, it will
> still fail if DENY_X_IF_ALLOW_WRITE ends up being set. The other
> version below does not have this limitation.
I'm not convinced this will be a meaningful limitation in practice, though
that's probably obvious from my RFCs :-). That being said, the UAPI quirk
is essentially a dealbreaker for multiple people, so let's drop #1.
I discussed the options with Cedric offline, and he is ok with option #2
*if* the idea actually translates to acceptable code and doesn't present
problems for userspace and/or future SGX features.
So, I'll work on an RFC series to implement #2 as described below. If it
works out, yay! If not, i.e. option #2 is fundamentally broken, I'll
shift my focus to Cedric's code (option #3).
> > 2. Pre-check LSM permissions and dynamically track mappings to enclave
> > pages, e.g. add an SGX mprotect() hook to restrict W->X and WX
> > based on the pre-checked permissions.
> >
> > Pros: Does not impact SGX UAPI, medium kernel complexity
> > Cons: Auditing is complex/weird, requires taking enclave-specific
> > lock during mprotect() to query/update tracking.
>
> Here's how this looks in my mind. It's quite similar, except that
> ALLOW_READ, ALLOW_WRITE, and ALLOW_EXEC are replaced with a little
> state machine.
>
> EADD does not take any special flags. It calls this LSM hook:
>
> int security_enclave_load(struct vm_area_struct *source);
>
> This hook can return -EPERM. Otherwise it 0 or ALLOC_EXEC_IF_UNMODIFIED
> (i.e. 1). This hook enforces permissions (a) and (b).
>
> The driver tracks a state for each page, and the possible states are:
>
> - CLEAN_MAYEXEC /* no W or X VMAs have existed, but X is okay */
> - CLEAN_NOEXEC /* no W or X VMAs have existed, and X is not okay */
> - CLEAN_EXEC /* no W VMA has existed, but an X VMA has existed */
> - DIRTY /* a W VMA has existed */
>
> The initial state for a page is CLEAN_MAYEXEC if the hook said
> ALLOW_EXEC_IF_UNMODIFIED and CLEAN_NOEXEC otherwise.
>
> The future EAUG does not call a hook at all and puts pages into the state
> CLEAN_NOEXEC. If SGX3 or later ever adds EAUG-but-don't-clear, it can
> call security_enclave_load() and add CLEAN_MAYEXEC pages if appropriate.
>
> EINIT takes a sigstruct pointer. SGX calls a new hook:
>
> unsigned int security_enclave_init(struct sigstruct *sigstruct,
> struct vm_area_struct *source, unsigned int flags);
>
> This hook can return -EPERM. Otherwise it returns 0 or a combination of
> flags DENY_WX and DENY_X_DIRTY. The driver saves this value.
> These represent permissions (c) and (d).
>
> If we want to have a permission for "execute code supplied from outside the
> enclave that was not measured", we could have a flag like
> HAS_UNMEASURED_CLEAN_EXEC_PAGE that the LSM could consider.
>
> mmap() and mprotect() enforce the following rules:
>
> - If VM_EXEC is requested and (either the page is DIRTY or VM_WRITE is
> requested) and DENY_X_DIRTY, then deny.
>
> - If VM_WRITE and VM_EXEC are both requested and DENY_WX, then deny.
>
> - If VM_WRITE is requested, we need to update the state. If it was
> CLEAN_EXEC, then we reject if DENY_X_DIRTY. Otherwise we change the
> state to DIRTY.
>
> - If VM_EXEC is requested and the page is CLEAN_NOEXEC, then deny.
>
> mprotect() and mmap() do *not* call SGX-specific LSM hooks to ask for
> permission, although they can optionally call an LSM hook if they hit one of
> the -EPERM cases for auditing purposes.
>
> Before the SIGSTRUCT is provided to the driver, the driver acts as though
> DENY_X_DIRTY and DENY_WX are both set.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-13 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-06 2:11 [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] security: x86/sgx: SGX vs. LSM Sean Christopherson
2019-06-06 2:11 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] mm: Introduce vm_ops->may_mprotect() Sean Christopherson
2019-06-10 15:06 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-10 15:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-10 17:47 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-10 19:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-10 22:06 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-06 2:11 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] x86/sgx: Require userspace to define enclave pages' protection bits Sean Christopherson
2019-06-10 15:27 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-10 16:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-10 17:45 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-10 18:17 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-12 19:26 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-10 18:29 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-10 19:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-10 22:28 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-12 0:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-12 14:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-12 18:20 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-06 2:11 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] x86/sgx: Enforce noexec filesystem restriction for enclaves Sean Christopherson
2019-06-10 16:00 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-10 16:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-11 17:21 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-06 2:11 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] LSM: x86/sgx: Introduce ->enclave_load() hook for Intel SGX Sean Christopherson
2019-06-07 19:58 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-10 16:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-10 16:05 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-06 2:11 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] security/selinux: Add enclave_load() implementation Sean Christopherson
2019-06-07 21:16 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-10 16:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-17 16:38 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-10 7:03 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] security/x86/sgx: SGX specific LSM hooks Cedric Xing
2019-06-10 7:03 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] LSM/x86/sgx: Add " Cedric Xing
2019-06-10 7:03 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] LSM/x86/sgx: Implement SGX specific hooks in SELinux Cedric Xing
2019-06-11 13:40 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-11 22:02 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-12 9:32 ` Dr. Greg
2019-06-12 14:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-13 7:25 ` Dr. Greg
2019-06-12 19:30 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-12 22:02 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2019-06-13 0:10 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-13 1:02 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-13 17:02 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-13 23:03 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-13 23:17 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-14 0:31 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-14 0:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-14 15:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-16 22:14 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-17 16:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-17 17:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-18 15:40 ` Dr. Greg
2019-06-14 17:16 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-14 17:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-14 17:53 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-14 20:01 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-16 22:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-14 23:19 ` Dr. Greg
2019-06-11 22:55 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-13 18:00 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-13 19:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-13 21:09 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-13 21:02 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-14 0:37 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-10 7:03 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] LSM/x86/sgx: Call new LSM hooks from SGX subsystem Cedric Xing
2019-06-10 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] security/x86/sgx: SGX specific LSM hooks Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190612220242.GJ20308@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=cedric.xing@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
--cc=haitao.huang@intel.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jethro@fortanix.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
--cc=kai.svahn@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=philip.b.tricca@intel.com \
--cc=pmccallum@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=serge.ayoun@intel.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=shay.katz-zamir@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=william.c.roberts@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).