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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:02:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190611220243.GB3416@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b6f099cd-c0eb-d5cf-847d-27a15ac5ceaf@tycho.nsa.gov>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-11 22:02 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 [this message]
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
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=20190611220243.GB3416@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).