Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas

From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Idan Yaniv <idan.yaniv@ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:30:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201103163002.GK4879@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1547601988.128687.1604411534845@office.mailbox.org>

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
> > On 11/02/2020 4:40 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Isn't memfd_secret currently *unnecessarily* designed to be a "one task
> > > feature"? memfd_secret fulfills exactly two (generic) features:
> > > 
> > > - address space isolation from kernel (aka SECRET_EXCLUSIVE, not in kernel's
> > >   direct map) - hide from kernel, great
> > > - disabling processor's memory caches against speculative-execution vulnerabilities
> > >   (spectre and friends, aka SECRET_UNCACHED), also great
> > > 
> > > But, what about the following use-case: implementing a hardened IPC mechanism
> > > where even the kernel is not aware of any data and optionally via SECRET_UNCACHED
> > > even the hardware caches are bypassed! With the patches we are so close to
> > > achieving this.
> > > 
> > > How? Shared, SECRET_EXCLUSIVE and SECRET_UNCACHED mmaped pages for IPC
> > > involved tasks required to know this mapping (and memfd_secret fd). After IPC
> > > is done, tasks can copy sensitive data from IPC pages into memfd_secret()
> > > pages, un-sensitive data can be used/copied everywhere.
> > 
> > As long as the task share the file descriptor, they can share the
> > secretmem pages, pretty much like normal memfd.
> 
> Including process_vm_readv() and process_vm_writev()? Let's take a hypothetical
> "dbus-daemon-secure" service that receives data from process A and wants to
> copy/distribute it to data areas of N other processes. Much like dbus but without
> SOCK_DGRAM rather direct copy into secretmem/mmap pages (ring-buffer). Should be
> possible, right?

I'm not sure I follow you here.
For process_vm_readv() and process_vm_writev() secremem will be only
accessible on the local part, but not on the remote.
So copying data to secretmem pages using process_vm_writev wouldn't
work.

> > > One missing piece is still the secure zeroization of the page(s) if the
> > > mapping is closed by last process to guarantee a secure cleanup. This can
> > > probably done as an general mmap feature, not coupled to memfd_secret() and
> > > can be done independently ("reverse" MAP_UNINITIALIZED feature).
> > 
> > There are "init_on_alloc" and "init_on_free" kernel parameters that
> > enable zeroing of the pages on alloc and on free globally.
> > Anyway, I'll add zeroing of the freed memory to secretmem.
> 
> Great, this allows page-specific (thus runtime-performance-optimized) zeroing
> of secured pages. init_on_free lowers the performance to much and is not precice
> enough.
> 
> Hagen

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.