From: "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
selinux@vger.kernel.org, casey.schaufler@intel.com,
jmorris@namei.org, luto@kernel.org, jethro@fortanix.com,
greg@enjellic.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov,
jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] security/x86/sgx: SGX specific LSM hooks
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:26:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <25585bb7-fb29-97c6-9ce1-5d7f192ab0f2@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190708184955.GC20791@linux.intel.com>
Hi Sean,
What's in my cover letter is my assessment on what's in your series. You
may disagree. But I don't think it productive until you can prove your
points in code.
The key points I'm making are:
(1) The impact to user mode code due to UAPI change is more significant
than you have envisioned.
(2) Your series has implemented less than required in practice.
For #1, regular shared objects don't carry info like whether it contains
self-modifying code or generates code on the fly. So your requirement of
"maximal protection" is new, and you should at least put together a
story to show everyone how it could be met, especially without changing
build tools.
For #2, SGX2 is imminent, and the upcoming ICX server will support 512GB
of EPC. So the problems in mprotect() performance and EAUG-on-#PF must
be solved, let alone other problems. I guess you have to code them up so
everyone will be able to evaluate whether your approach is really as
simple as you have claimed.
-Cedric
On 7/8/2019 11:49 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 10:49:59AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
>> On 7/8/2019 8:55 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 07, 2019 at 04:41:30PM -0700, Cedric Xing wrote:
>> True only for SGX1.
>>>> “maximal protection” at page load time, but such information is NOT always
>>>> available. For example, Graphene containers may run different applications
>>>> comprised of different set of executables and/or shared objects. Some of
>>>> them may contain self-modifying code (or text relocation) while others
>>>> don’t. The generic enclave loader usually doesn’t have such information so
>>>> wouldn’t be able to provide it ahead of time.
>>>
>>> I'm unconvinced that it would be remotely difficult to teach an enclave
>>> loader that an enclave or hosted application employs SMC, relocation or
>>> any other behavior that would require declaring RWX on all pages.
>>
>> You've been talking as if "enclave loader" is tailored to the enclave it is
>> loading. But in reality "enclave loader" is usually a library knowing
>> usually nothing about the enclave. How could it know if an enclave contains
>> self-modifying code?
>
> Given the rarity of SMC, require enclaves to declare "I do SMC"... The
> Intel SDK already requires the enclave developer to declare heap size,
> stack size, thread affinity, etc... I have a very hard time believing
> that it can't support SMC and relocation flags.
>
>>>> · Inefficient Auditing – Audit logs are supposed to help system
>>>> administrators to determine the set of minimally needed permissions and to
>>>> detect abnormal behaviors. But consider the “maximal protection” model, if
>>>> “maximal protection” is set to be too permissive, then audit log wouldn’t
>>>> be able to detect anomalies;
>>>
>>> Huh? Declaring overly permissive protections is only problematic if an
>>> LSM denies the permission, in which case it will generate an accurate
>>> audit log.
>>>
>>> If the enclave/loader "requires" a permission it doesn't actually need,
>>> e.g. EXECDIRTY, then it's a software bug that should be fixed. I don't
>>> see how this scenario is any different than an application that uses
>>> assembly code without 'noexecstack' and inadvertantly "requires"
>>> EXECSTACK due to triggering "read implies exec". In both cases the
>>> denied permission is unnecessary due to a userspace application bug.
>>
>> You see, you've been assuming "enclave loader" knows everything and tailored
>> to what it loads in a particular application. But the reality is the loader
>> is generic and probably shared by multiple applications.
>
> No, I'm assuming that an enclave can communicate its basic needs without
> undue pain.
>
>> It needs some generic way to figure out the "maximal protection". An
>> implementation could use information embedded in the enclave file, or could
>> just be "configurable". In the former case, you put extra burdens on the build
>> tools, while in the latter case, your audit logs cannot help generating an
>> appropriate configuration.
>
> I'm contending the "extra burdens" is minimal.
>
> if (do_smc || do_relocation)
> max_prot = RWX;
> else
> max_prot = SECINFO.FLAGS;
>
>>>> or if “maximal protection” is too restrictive,
>>>> then audit log cannot identify the file violating the policy.
>>>
>>> Maximal protections that are too restrictive are completely orthogonal to
>>> LSMs as the enclave would fail to run irrespective of LSMs. This is no
>>> different than specifying the wrong RWX flags in SECINFO, or opening a
>>> file as RO instead of RW.
>>
>> Say loader is configurable. By looking at the log, can an administrator tell
>> which file has too restrictive "maximal protection"?
>
> Again, this fails irrespective of LSMs. So the answer is "no", because
> there is no log. But the admin will never have to deal with this issue
> because the enclave will *never* run, i.e. would unconditionally fail to
> run during initial development. And the developer has bigger problems if
> they can't debug their own code.
>
>>>> In either case the audit log cannot fulfill its purposes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-08 22:26 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 [this message]
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
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=25585bb7-fb29-97c6-9ce1-5d7f192ab0f2@intel.com \
--to=cedric.xing@intel.com \
--cc=casey.schaufler@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=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
/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).