[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/25] x86/sgx: Support enclave page permission changes
Hi Jarkko,

On 12/4/2021 3:08 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 11:23:08AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> In the initial (SGX1) version of SGX, pages in an enclave need to be
>> created with permissions that support all usages of the pages, from the
>> time the enclave is initialized until it is unloaded. For example,
>> pages used by a JIT compiler or when code needs to otherwise be
>> relocated need to always have RWX permissions.
>> SGX2 includes two functions that can be used to modify the enclave page
>> permissions of regular enclave pages within an initialized enclave.
>> ENCLS[EMODPR] is run from the OS and used to restrict enclave page
>> permissions while ENCLU[EMODPE] is run from within the enclave to
>> extend enclave page permissions.
>> Enclave page permission changes need to be approached with care and
>> for this reason this initial support is to allow enclave page
>> permission changes _only_ if the new permissions are the same or
>> more restrictive that the permissions originally vetted at the time the
>> pages were added to the enclave. Support for extending enclave page
>> permissions beyond what was originally vetted is deferred.
> This paragraph is out-of-scope for a commit message. You could have
> this in the cover letter but not here. I would just remove it.

I think this is essential information that is mentioned in the cover
letter _and_ in this changelog. I will follow Dave's guidance and avoid
"deferred" by just removing that last sentence.

>> Whether enclave page permissions are restricted or extended it
>> is necessary to ensure that the page table entries and enclave page
>> permissions are in sync. Introduce a new ioctl, SGX_IOC_PAGE_MODP, to
> SGX_IOC_PAGE_MODP does not match the naming convetion of these:

ah - my understanding was that the SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE prefix related to
operations related to the entire enclave and thus I introduced the
prefix SGX_IOC_PAGE to relate to operations on pages within an enclave.

> A better name would be SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MOD_PROTECTIONS. It doesn't
> do harm to be a more verbose.

Will do. I see later you propose SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPE - would you
like them to be consistent wrt MOD/MODIFY?


 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-06 22:43    [W:0.254 / U:6.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site