Re: [RFC PATCH v2.1 14/30] x86/sgx: Support restricting of enclave page permissions

[Reinette Chatre]

Hi Jarkko,

On 3/9/2022 3:35 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 08:59:42AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Jarkko,
>>
>> On 3/9/2022 1:35 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 10:52:22AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 11:35:08AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>> +#define SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RESTRICT_PERMISSIONS \
>>>>> +	_IOWR(SGX_MAGIC, 0x05, struct sgx_enclave_restrict_perm)
>>>>
>>>> What if this was replaced with just SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RESET_PAGES, which
>>>> would simply do EMODPR with PROT_NONE? The main ingredient of EMODPR is to
>>>> flush out the TLB's, and move a page to pending state, which cannot be done
>>>> from inside the enclave.
>>
>> I see the main ingredient as running EMODPR to restrict the EPCM permissions. If
>> the user wants to use SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RESTRICT_PERMISSIONS just to flush TLB it is
>> already possible since attempting to use EMODPR to relax permissions does not
>> change any permissions (although it still sets EPCM.PR) but yet will still
>> flush the TLB.
> 
> It's not just to flush the TLB. It also resets permissions to zero from
> which it is easy to set the exact permissions with EMODPE.
> 
>> Even so, you have a very good point that removing SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RELAX_PERMISSIONS
>> removes the ability for users to flush the TLB after an EMODPE. If there are
>> thus PTEs present at the time the user runs EMODPE the pages would not be
>> accessible with the new permissions.
>>
>> Repurposing SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RESTRICT_PERMISSIONS with PROT_NONE to accomplish
>> this is not efficient because:
>> - For the OS to flush the TLB the enclave pages need not be in the EPC but
>>   in order to run EMODPR the enclave page needs to be in the EPC. In an 
>>   oversubscribed environment running EMODPR unnecessarily can thus introduce
>>   a significant delay. Please see the performance comparison I did in
>>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/77e81306-6b03-4b09-2df2-48e09e2e79d5@xxxxxxxxx/
>>   The test shows that running EMODPR unnecessarily can be orders of magnitude slower.
>> - Running EMODPR on an enclave page sets the EPCM.PR bin in the enclave page
>>   that needs to be cleared with an EACCEPT from within the enclave.
>>   If the user just wants to reset the TLB after running EMODPE then it should
>>   not be necessary to run EACCEPT again to reset EPCM.PR.
>>
>> Resetting the TLB is exactly what SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RELAX_PERMISSIONS did in an 
>> efficient way - it is quick (no need to load pages into EPC) and it does not
>> require EACCEPT to clear EPCM.PR. 
>>
>> It looks like we need SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RELAX_PERMISSIONS back. We could
>> rename it to SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RESET_PAGES if you prefer.
> 
> Please do not add it. We do not have any use for it. It's not only used
> to flush TLB's so it would not do any good. I just use it with fixed
> PROT_NONE permissions.
> 
>>>> It's there because of microarchitecture constraints, and less so to work as
>>>> a reasonable permission control mechanism (actually it does terrible job on
>>>> that side and only confuses).
>>>>
>>>> Once you have this magic TLB reset button in place you can just do one
>>>> EACCEPT and EMODPE inside the enclave and you're done.
>>>>
>>>> This is also kind of atomic in the sense that EACCEPT free's a page with no
>>>> rights so no misuse can happend before EMODPE has tuned EPCM.
>>>
>>> I wonder if this type of pattern could be made work out for Graphene:
>>>
>>> 1. SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RESET_PAGES
>>> 2. EACCEPT + EMODPE
>>>
>>> This kind of delivers EMODP that everyone has been looking for.
>>
>> EACCEPT will result in page table entries created for the enclave page. EMODPE
>> will be able to relax the permissions but TLB flush would be required to
>> access the page with the new permissions. SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RELAX_PERMISSIONS
>> (renamed to SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RESET_PAGES?) that does just a TLB flush is
>> required to be after EMODPE.
> 
> For EMODPE TLB flush is not required. I even verified this from Mark
> Shanahan. And since access rights are zero, the page cannot be
> deferenced by threads before EMODPE.
> 

Understood. I realized my mistake only after sending the email and attempted
to correct it in the following. Sorry for the noise.

Reinette