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

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:16:04PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:50 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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.

I was merely wondering if it is specifically for the application where a
client process would mmap(MAP_FIXED) an enclave created by a server
process.

/Jarkko