Re: SGX vs LSM (Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support)
From: Sean Christopherson
Date: Wed May 15 2019 - 17:40:53 EST
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 2) Just like any other DSO, there are potential issues with how
> enclaves deal with writable vs executable memory. This takes two
> forms. First, a task should probably require EXECMEM, EXECMOD, or
> similar permission to run an enclave that can modify its own text.
> Second, it would be nice if a task that did *not* have EXECMEM,
> EXECMOD, or similar could still run the enclave if it had EXECUTE
> permission on the file containing the enclave.
> Currently, this all works because DSOs are run by mmapping the file to
> create multiple VMAs, some of which are executable, non-writable, and
> non-CoWed, and some of which are writable but not executable. With
> SGX, there's only really one inode per enclave (the anon_inode that
> comes form /dev/sgx/enclave), and it can only be sensibly mapped
I was wrong when I said /dev/sgx/enclave creates and returns an anon
inode. I was thinking of the KVM model for creating VMs. SGX creates
an enclave when /dev/sgx/enclave is opened and associates the enclave
with the newly opened /dev/sgx/enclave fd.
Regardless, the fundamental problem remains, mmap() of EPC works on a