From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EA9C4363D for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:58:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA20523A82 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:58:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726448AbgIXV6Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:58:25 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:46027 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726205AbgIXV6Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:58:25 -0400 IronPort-SDR: a2u74Y+AetCqB2LUqrv99fQwSvr3qsOo1g6PEdKPg8FhcSSS/xTjprhKqM5oWAOMhw4CQOJZ0L V+OtZ7GU6C3Q== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9754"; a="222951771" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,299,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="222951771" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Sep 2020 14:58:24 -0700 IronPort-SDR: bbCSE4/R5ayvoWbafEt20soFZkpybG7fXU9p/ubQc1UiSKUuDr3enPuYHx8dSLInapesEHv0rP nGlckWlwbUrg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,299,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="487139590" Received: from yshmidtx-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.252.63.233]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Sep 2020 14:58:17 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:58:15 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Haitao Huang , Andy Lutomirski , X86 ML , linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Linux-MM , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Jethro Beekman , Darren Kenny , Andy Shevchenko , asapek@google.com, Borislav Petkov , "Xing, Cedric" , chenalexchen@google.com, Conrad Parker , cyhanish@google.com, Dave Hansen , "Huang, Haitao" , Josh Triplett , "Huang, Kai" , "Svahn, Kai" , Keith Moyer , Christian Ludloff , Neil Horman , Nathaniel McCallum , Patrick Uiterwijk , David Rientjes , Thomas Gleixner , yaozhangx@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v38 10/24] mm: Add vm_ops->mprotect() Message-ID: <20200924215815.GB119995@linux.intel.com> References: <20200921124946.GF6038@linux.intel.com> <20200921165758.GA24156@linux.intel.com> <20200921210736.GB58176@linux.intel.com> <20200921211849.GA25403@linux.intel.com> <20200922052957.GA97272@linux.intel.com> <20200922053515.GA97687@linux.intel.com> <20200922164301.GB30874@linux.intel.com> <20200923135056.GD5160@linux.intel.com> <20200924192853.GA18826@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200924192853.GA18826@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:28:54PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:11:37PM -0500, Haitao Huang wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 08:50:56 -0500, Jarkko Sakkinen > > wrote: > > >I'll categorically deny noexec in the next patch set version. > > > > > >/Jarkko > > > > There are use cases supported currently in which enclave binary is received > > via IPC/RPC and held in buffers before EADD. Denying noexec altogether would > > break those, right? > > No. noexec only applies to file-backed VMAs, what you're describing is loading > an enclave from an anon VMA, which will still have VM_MAYEXEC. > > I believe you're thinking of SELinux's EXECMEM, which is required to execute > from anonymous memory, and which we talked about (more than once) applying to > SGX enclaves. > > That being said, I still dislike the idea of requiring VM_MAYEXEC, it's a hack > that doesn't really buy us much, if anything. I think it makes sense as long as it is not half-way there solution. Either require it for the full binary or not at all. I'm fine with either. /Jarkko