RE: [RFC PATCH 2/9] x86/sgx: Do not naturally align MAP_FIXED address

From: "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
	"Stephen Smalley" <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
	"selinux@vger.kernel.org" <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
	"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"nhorman@redhat.com" <nhorman@redhat.com>,
	"npmccallum@redhat.com" <npmccallum@redhat.com>,
	"Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@intel.com>,
	"Katz-zamir, Shay" <shay.katz-zamir@intel.com>,
	"Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@intel.com>,
	"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	"Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@intel.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	"Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@intel.com>,
	"Tricca, Philip B" <philip.b.tricca@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 2/9] x86/sgx: Do not naturally align MAP_FIXED address
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 22:10:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <960B34DE67B9E140824F1DCDEC400C0F654EDBDE@ORSMSX116.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVe0jhAWAFmx+NFEjJcijSJv2LDVC7cUXi0w99kNKjh_g@mail.gmail.com>

> From: linux-sgx-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-sgx-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Andy Lutomirski
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 1:16 PM
> 
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:50 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:31:52PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > SGX enclaves have an associated Enclave Linear Range (ELRANGE) that
> > > is tracked and enforced by the CPU using a base+mask approach,
> > > similar to how hardware range registers such as the variable MTRRs.
> > > As a result, the ELRANGE must be naturally sized and aligned.
> > >
> > > To reduce boilerplate code that would be needed in every userspace
> > > enclave loader, the SGX driver naturally aligns the mmap() address
> > > and also requires the range to be naturally sized.  Unfortunately,
> > > SGX fails to grant a waiver to the MAP_FIXED case, e.g. incorrectly
> > > rejects mmap() if userspace is attempting to map a small slice of an
> existing enclave.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> >
> > Why you want to allow mmap() to be called multiple times? mmap() could
> > be allowed only once with PROT_NONE and denied afterwards. Is this for
> > sending fd to another process that would map already existing enclave?
> >
> > I don't see any checks for whether the is enclave underneath. Also, I
> > think that in all cases mmap() callback should allow only PROT_NONE as
> > permissions for clarity even if it could called multiple times.
> >
> 
> What's the advantage to only allowing PROT_NONE?  The idea here is to
> allow a PROT_NONE map followed by some replacemets that overlay it for
> the individual segments.  Admittedly, mprotect() can do the same thing,
> but disallowing mmap() seems at least a bit surprising.

Disallowing mmap() is not only surprising but also unnecessary.

A bit off topic here. This mmap()/mprotect() discussion reminds me a question (guess for Jarkko): Now that vma->vm_file->private_data keeps a pointer to the enclave, why do we store it again in vma->vm_private? It isn't a big deal but non-NULL vm_private does prevent mprotect() from merging adjacent VMAs. 