From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
selinux@vger.kernel.org,
Bill Roberts <william.c.roberts@intel.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Cedric Xing <cedric.xing@intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
"Dr . Greg Wettstein" <greg@enjellic.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/12] security: x86/sgx: SGX vs. LSM
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:29:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190708172930.GA20791@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190705160549.tzsck5ho5kvtdhit@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 07:05:49PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 03:23:49PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
> I still don't get why we need this whole mess and do not simply admit
> that there are two distinct roles:
>
> 1. Creator
> 2. User
Because SELinux has existing concepts of EXECMEM and EXECMOD.
> In the SELinux context Creator needs FILE__WRITE and FILE__EXECUTE but
> User does not. It just gets the fd from the Creator. I'm sure that all
> the SGX2 related functionality can be solved somehow in this role
> playing game.
>
> An example would be the usual case where enclave is actually a loader
> that loads the actual piece of software that one wants to run. Things
> simply need to be designed in a way the Creator runs the loader part.
> These are non-trivial problems but oddball security model is not going
> to make them disappear - on the contrary it will make designing user
> space only more complicated.
>
> I think this is classical example of when something overly complicated
> is invented in the kernel only to realize that it should be solved in
> the user space.
>
> It would not be like the only use case where some kind of privileged
> daemon is used for managing some a kernel provided resource.
>
> I think a really good conclusion from this discussion that has taken two
> months is to realize that nothing needs to be done in this area (except
> *maybe* noexec check).
Hmm, IMO we need to support at least equivalents to EXECMEM and EXECMOD.
That being said, we can do so without functional changes to the SGX uapi,
e.g. add reserved fields so that the initial uapi can be extended *if* we
decide to go with the "userspace provides maximal protections" path, and
use the EPCM permissions as the maximal protections for the initial
upstreaming.
That'd give us a minimal implemenation for initial upstreaming and would
eliminate Cedric's blocking complaint. The "whole mess" of whitelisting,
blacklisting and SGX2 support would be deferred until post-upstreaming.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-08 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 156+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-19 22:23 [RFC PATCH v4 00/12] security: x86/sgx: SGX vs. LSM Sean Christopherson
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 01/12] x86/sgx: Use mmu_notifier.release() instead of per-vma refcounting Sean Christopherson
2019-06-20 21:03 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-08 14:57 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-09 16:18 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 02/12] x86/sgx: Do not naturally align MAP_FIXED address Sean Christopherson
2019-06-20 21:09 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-20 22:09 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 03/12] selftests: x86/sgx: Mark the enclave loader as not needing an exec stack Sean Christopherson
2019-06-20 21:17 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 04/12] x86/sgx: Require userspace to define enclave pages' protection bits Sean Christopherson
2019-06-21 1:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-21 1:16 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-21 16:42 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-08 16:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-08 17:29 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-01 18:00 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-01 19:22 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 05/12] x86/sgx: Enforce noexec filesystem restriction for enclaves Sean Christopherson
2019-06-21 1:26 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-07 19:03 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 06/12] mm: Introduce vm_ops->may_mprotect() Sean Christopherson
2019-06-21 1:35 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 07/12] LSM: x86/sgx: Introduce ->enclave_map() hook for Intel SGX Sean Christopherson
2019-06-21 2:28 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-21 16:54 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-25 20:48 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-27 20:29 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-07 18:01 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 08/12] security/selinux: Require SGX_MAPWX to map enclave page WX Sean Christopherson
2019-06-21 17:09 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-25 21:05 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-27 20:26 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-25 20:19 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-26 12:49 ` Dr. Greg
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 09/12] LSM: x86/sgx: Introduce ->enclave_load() hook for Intel SGX Sean Christopherson
2019-06-21 17:05 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-25 21:01 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-25 21:49 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-27 19:38 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-19 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v4 10/12] security/selinux: Add enclave_load() implementation Sean Christopherson
2019-06-21 21:22 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-25 21:09 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-27 20:19 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-28 16:16 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-28 21:20 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-29 1:15 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-07-01 18:14 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-29 23:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-01 17:46 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-01 17:53 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-01 18:54 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-01 19:03 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-01 19:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-01 20:03 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-07 18:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-25 20:34 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-19 22:24 ` [RFC PATCH v4 11/12] security/apparmor: " Sean Christopherson
2019-06-19 22:24 ` [RFC PATCH v4 12/12] LSM: x86/sgx: Show line of sight to LSM support SGX2's EAUG Sean Christopherson
2019-06-21 17:18 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-08 14:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-21 1:32 ` [RFC PATCH v4 00/12] security: x86/sgx: SGX vs. LSM Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-06-27 18:56 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] security/x86/sgx: SGX specific LSM hooks Cedric Xing
2019-07-03 23:16 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-03 23:22 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-03 23:23 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-06 5:04 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-08 14:46 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-07 23:41 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] " Cedric Xing
2019-07-08 15:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-08 17:49 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-08 18:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-08 22:26 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-07 23:41 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] x86/sgx: Add " Cedric Xing
2019-07-07 23:41 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] x86/64: Call LSM hooks from SGX subsystem/module Cedric Xing
2019-07-09 1:03 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-07 23:41 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] X86/sgx: Introduce EMA as a new LSM module Cedric Xing
2019-07-08 16:26 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-08 17:16 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-08 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-09 22:13 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-10 0:10 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-10 0:55 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-10 21:14 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-11 13:51 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-07-11 15:12 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-11 16:11 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-07-11 16:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-11 16:32 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-07-11 23:41 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-07 23:41 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] x86/sgx: Implement SGX specific hooks in SELinux Cedric Xing
2019-07-09 1:33 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-09 21:26 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-10 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-10 16:08 ` Jethro Beekman
2019-07-10 18:16 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-10 17:54 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-27 18:56 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] x86/sgx: Add SGX specific LSM hooks Cedric Xing
2019-06-27 22:06 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-27 22:52 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-27 23:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-28 0:47 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-28 17:22 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-28 22:29 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-29 1:37 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-29 21:35 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-01 17:57 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-01 19:53 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-01 21:45 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-01 23:11 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-02 7:42 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-02 15:44 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-03 9:46 ` Dr. Greg
2019-07-03 15:32 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-07 13:30 ` Dr. Greg
2019-07-09 0:02 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-07-09 1:52 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-09 21:16 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-11 10:22 ` Dr. Greg
2019-07-15 22:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-28 16:37 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-28 21:53 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-29 1:22 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-07-01 18:02 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-29 23:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-01 17:11 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-01 17:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-01 18:31 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-01 19:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-01 19:56 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-02 2:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-02 6:35 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-06-27 18:56 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] x86/sgx: Call LSM hooks from SGX subsystem/module Cedric Xing
2019-06-27 18:56 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] x86/sgx: Implement SGX specific hooks in SELinux Cedric Xing
2019-07-05 16:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 00/12] security: x86/sgx: SGX vs. LSM Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-08 17:29 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2019-07-08 17:33 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-09 16:22 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-09 17:09 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-09 20:41 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-09 22:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-09 23:11 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-10 16:57 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-10 20:19 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-10 20:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-11 9:06 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-10 22:00 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-10 22:16 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-10 23:16 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-11 9:26 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-11 14:32 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-07-11 17:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-12 0:08 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-10 1:28 ` Dr. Greg
2019-07-10 2:04 ` Xing, Cedric
2019-07-10 3:21 ` Jethro Beekman
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=20190708172930.GA20791@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \
--cc=cedric.xing@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=greg@enjellic.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jethro@fortanix.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.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).