Re: SGX vs LSM (Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support)

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On May 17, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:04:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:55 AM Sean Christopherson
>> <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In this snippet, IS_PRIVATE() is true for anon inodes, false for
>>> /dev/sgx/enclave.  Because EPC memory is always shared, SELinux will never
>>> check PROCESS__EXECMEM for mprotect() on/dev/sgx/enclave.
>> 
>> Why _does_ the memory have to be shared? Shared mmap() is
>> fundamentally less secure than private mmap, since by definition it
>> means "oh, somebody else has access to it too and might modify it
>> under us".
>> 
>> Why does the SGX logic care about things like that? Normal executables
>> are just private mappings of an underlying file, I'm not sure why the
>> SGX interface has to have that shared thing, and why the interface has
>> to have a device node in the first place when  you have system calls
>> for setup anyway.
>> 
>> So why don't the system calls just work on perfectly normal anonymous
>> mmap's? Why a device node, and why must it be shared to begin with?
> 
> I agree that conceptually EPC is private memory, but because EPC is
> managed as a separate memory pool, SGX tags it VM_PFNMAP and manually
> inserts PFNs, i.e. EPC effectively it gets classified as IO memory. 
> 
> And vmf_insert_pfn_prot() doesn't like writable private IO mappings:
> 
>   BUG_ON((vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) && is_cow_mapping(vma->vm_flags));

I donât see how it could be anonymous even in principle.  The kernel canât *read* the memory â how could we possibly CoW it?  And we canât share an RO backing pages between two different enclaves because the CPU wonât let us â each EPC page belongs to a particular enclave.  And fork()ing an enclave is right out.

So I agree that MAP_ANONYMOUS would be nice conceptually, but I donât see how it would work.