Linux-Security-Module Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Cc: Cedric Xing <cedric.xing@intel.com>,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
	jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
	jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, paul@paul-moore.com,
	eparis@parisplace.org, jethro@fortanix.com,
	dave.hansen@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	nhorman@redhat.com, pmccallum@redhat.com, serge.ayoun@intel.com,
	shay.katz-zamir@intel.com, haitao.huang@intel.com,
	andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, kai.svahn@intel.com,
	bp@alien8.de, josh@joshtriplett.org, kai.huang@intel.com,
	rientjes@google.com, william.c.roberts@intel.com,
	philip.b.tricca@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] LSM/x86/sgx: Implement SGX specific hooks in SELinux
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:46:00 -0700
Message-ID: <20190614004600.GF18385@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8d99d8fb-a921-286a-8cf0-cd522e09b37c@tycho.nsa.gov>

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:02:17PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 6/11/19 6:02 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:40:25AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >>I haven't looked at this code closely, but it feels like a lot of
> >>SGX-specific logic embedded into SELinux that will have to be repeated or
> >>reused for every security module.  Does SGX not track this state itself?
> >
> >SGX does track equivalent state.
> >
> >There are three proposals on the table (I think):
> >
> >   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.
> >
> >   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.
> >
> >   3. Implement LSM hooks in SGX to allow LSMs to track enclave regions
> >      from cradle to grave, but otherwise defer everything to LSMs.
> >
> >      Pros: Does not impact SGX UAPI, maximum flexibility, precise auditing
> >      Cons: Most complex and "heaviest" kernel implementation of the three,
> >            pushes more SGX details into LSMs.
> >
> >My RFC series[1] implements #1.  My understanding is that Andy (Lutomirski)
> >prefers #2.  Cedric's RFC series implements #3.
> >
> >Perhaps the easiest way to make forward progress is to rule out the
> >options we absolutely *don't* want by focusing on the potentially blocking
> >issue with each option:
> >
> >   #1 - SGX UAPI funkiness
> >
> >   #2 - Auditing complexity, potential enclave lock contention
> >
> >   #3 - Pushing SGX details into LSMs and complexity of kernel implementation
> >
> >
> >[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190606021145.12604-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com
> 
> Given the complexity tradeoff, what is the clear motivating example for why
> #1 isn't the obvious choice? That the enclave loader has no way of knowing a
> priori whether the enclave will require W->X or WX?  But aren't we better
> off requiring enclaves to be explicitly marked as needing such so that we
> can make a more informed decision about whether to load them in the first
> place?

Andy and/or Cedric, can you please weigh in with a concrete (and practical)
use case that will break if we go with #1?  The auditing issues for #2/#3
are complex to say the least...

  parent reply index

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
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 [this message]
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 publically 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=20190614004600.GF18385@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

Linux-Security-Module Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/0 linux-security-module/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-security-module linux-security-module/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module \
		linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org linux-security-module@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-security-module


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox