From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
jmorris@namei.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 06/12] mm: Add the encrypt_mprotect() system call
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:15:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180911021529.GA1732@alison-desk.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c790ace81239db52f8e9c42b10a9039aafbfff38.camel@linux.intel.com>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:02:43PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 15:36 -0700, Alison Schofield wrote:
> > Implement memory encryption with a new system call that is an
> > extension of the legacy mprotect() system call.
> >
> > In encrypt_mprotect the caller must pass a handle to a previously
> > allocated and programmed encryption key. Validate the key and store
> > the keyid bits in the vm_page_prot for each VMA in the protection
> > range.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
> > ---
> > fs/exec.c | 4 ++--
> > include/linux/key.h | 2 ++
> > include/linux/mm.h | 3 ++-
> > mm/mprotect.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > ---
> > 4 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> > index a1a246062561..b681a413db9c 100644
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -754,8 +754,8 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> > vm_flags |= mm->def_flags;
> > vm_flags |= VM_STACK_INCOMPLETE_SETUP;
> >
> > - ret = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end,
> > - vm_flags);
> > + ret = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end,
> > vm_flags,
> > + -1);
>
> Why you pass a magic number here when you went the trouble having
> a named constant?
The named constant isn't available over here in fs/exec.c.
The special case is documented further down ... (scroll down)
That caller has no knowledge of proctection or encryption keys.
>
> > if (ret)
> > goto out_unlock;
> > BUG_ON(prev != vma);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/key.h b/include/linux/key.h
> > index e58ee10f6e58..fb8a7d5f6149 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/key.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/key.h
> > @@ -346,6 +346,8 @@ static inline key_serial_t key_serial(const struct key
> > *key)
> >
> > extern void key_set_timeout(struct key *, unsigned);
> >
> > +extern key_ref_t lookup_user_key(key_serial_t id, unsigned long lflags,
> > + key_perm_t perm);
> > /*
> > * The permissions required on a key that we're looking up.
> > */
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index ac85c0805761..0f9422c7841e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -1579,7 +1579,8 @@ extern unsigned long change_protection(struct
> > vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long
> > int dirty_accountable, int prot_numa);
> > extern int mprotect_fixup(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > struct vm_area_struct **pprev, unsigned long start,
> > - unsigned long end, unsigned long newflags);
> > + unsigned long end, unsigned long newflags,
> > + int newkeyid);
> >
> > /*
> > * doesn't attempt to fault and will return short.
> > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > index 56e64ef7931e..6c2e1106525c 100644
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -28,14 +28,17 @@
> > #include <linux/ksm.h>
> > #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> > #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
> > +#include <linux/key.h>
> > #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> > #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> > #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
> > #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> > +#include <asm/mktme.h>
> >
> > #include "internal.h"
> >
> > #define NO_PKEY -1
> > +#define NO_KEYID -1
>
> Should have only single named constant IMHO. This ambiguity
> is worse than some reasonable constant name for both cases.
> Maybe NO_KEYID would be adequate?
Yes, this could be NO_KEY for both. I was worried about readability,
but most of the usages compare it to a well-named variable, as in
(pkey == NO_KEY) or (keyid == NO_KEY) so it seems to work.
Will do!
>
> >
> > static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> > unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, pgprot_t newprot,
> > @@ -310,7 +313,8 @@ unsigned long change_protection(struct vm_area_struct
> > *vma, unsigned long start,
> >
> > int
> > mprotect_fixup(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct **pprev,
> > - unsigned long start, unsigned long end, unsigned long newflags)
> > + unsigned long start, unsigned long end, unsigned long
> > newflags,
> > + int newkeyid)
> > {
> > struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > unsigned long oldflags = vma->vm_flags;
> > @@ -320,10 +324,24 @@ mprotect_fixup(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct
> > vm_area_struct **pprev,
> > int error;
> > int dirty_accountable = 0;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Flags match and Keyids match or we have NO_KEYID.
> > + * This _fixup is usually called from do_mprotect_ext() except
> > + * for one special case: caller fs/exec.c/setup_arg_pages()
> > + * In that case, newkeyid is passed as -1 (NO_KEYID).
> > + */
Above is that special case explanation.
> > + if (newflags == oldflags &&
> > + (newkeyid == vma_keyid(vma) || newkeyid == NO_KEYID)) {
> > + *pprev = vma;
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + /* Flags match and Keyid changes */
> > if (newflags == oldflags) {
> > + mprotect_set_encrypt(vma, newkeyid);
> > *pprev = vma;
> > return 0;
> > }
> > + /* Flags and Keyids both change, continue. */
> >
> > /*
> > * If we make a private mapping writable we increase our commit;
> > @@ -373,6 +391,8 @@ mprotect_fixup(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct
> > vm_area_struct **pprev,
> > }
> >
> > success:
> > + if (newkeyid != NO_KEYID)
> > + mprotect_set_encrypt(vma, newkeyid);
> > /*
> > * vm_flags and vm_page_prot are protected by the mmap_sem
> > * held in write mode.
> > @@ -404,10 +424,15 @@ mprotect_fixup(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct
> > vm_area_struct **pprev,
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * When pkey==NO_PKEY we get legacy mprotect behavior here.
> > + * do_mprotect_ext() supports the legacy mprotect behavior plus extensions
> > + * for protection keys and memory encryption keys. These extensions are
> > + * mutually exclusive and the behavior is:
> > + * (pkey==NO_PKEY && keyid==NO_KEYID) ==> legacy mprotect
> > + * (pkey is valid) ==> legacy mprotect plus protection key extensions
> > + * (keyid is valid) ==> legacy mprotect plus encryption key extensions
> > */
>
> The header does not follow
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt
Jarkko,
I see the "how to" on kernel doc formatting, but I'm not getting the
when? When should it be done? I can imagine it for new code, like
the mktme_keys.c where new code is being added and the kernel docs
could give a complete narrative of the module.
Here, in mprotect.c, there are no kernel doc comments. I realize
sometime we just need to start somewhere ;), but I find it odd to
pluck out one function header to be extracted for kernel docs.
Alison
>
> > static int do_mprotect_ext(unsigned long start, size_t len,
> > - unsigned long prot, int pkey)
> > + unsigned long prot, int pkey, int keyid)
> > {
> > unsigned long nstart, end, tmp, reqprot;
> > struct vm_area_struct *vma, *prev;
> > @@ -505,7 +530,8 @@ static int do_mprotect_ext(unsigned long start, size_t
> > len,
> > tmp = vma->vm_end;
> > if (tmp > end)
> > tmp = end;
> > - error = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags);
> > + error = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp, newflags,
> > + keyid);
> > if (error)
> > goto out;
> > nstart = tmp;
> > @@ -530,7 +556,7 @@ static int do_mprotect_ext(unsigned long start, size_t
> > len,
> > SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
> > unsigned long, prot)
> > {
> > - return do_mprotect_ext(start, len, prot, NO_PKEY);
> > + return do_mprotect_ext(start, len, prot, NO_PKEY, NO_KEYID);
> > }
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS
> > @@ -538,7 +564,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t,
> > len,
> > SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pkey_mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
> > unsigned long, prot, int, pkey)
> > {
> > - return do_mprotect_ext(start, len, prot, pkey);
> > + return do_mprotect_ext(start, len, prot, pkey, NO_KEYID);
> > }
> >
> > SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pkey_alloc, unsigned long, flags, unsigned long, init_val)
> > @@ -587,3 +613,32 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(pkey_free, int, pkey)
> > }
> >
> > #endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS */
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MKTME
> > +
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(encrypt_mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
> > + unsigned long, prot, key_serial_t, serial)
> > +{
> > + key_ref_t key_ref;
> > + int ret, keyid;
> > +
> > + /* TODO MKTME key service must be initialized */
> > +
> > + key_ref = lookup_user_key(serial, 0, KEY_NEED_VIEW);
> > + if (IS_ERR(key_ref))
> > + return PTR_ERR(key_ref);
> > +
> > + mktme_map_lock();
> > + keyid = mktme_map_keyid_from_serial(serial);
> > + if (!keyid) {
> > + mktme_map_unlock();
> > + key_ref_put(key_ref);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + ret = do_mprotect_ext(start, len, prot, NO_PKEY, keyid);
> > + mktme_map_unlock();
> > + key_ref_put(key_ref);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MKTME */
>
> /Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-11 2:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-07 22:23 [RFC 00/12] Multi-Key Total Memory Encryption API (MKTME) Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34 ` [RFC 01/12] docs/x86: Document the Multi-Key Total Memory Encryption API Alison Schofield
2018-09-08 18:44 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-09-10 1:28 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11 0:13 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11 0:33 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11 0:45 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11 1:14 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11 0:14 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 17:32 ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-11 0:19 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34 ` [RFC 02/12] mm: Generalize the mprotect implementation to support extensions Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 10:12 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-11 0:34 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34 ` [RFC 03/12] syscall/x86: Wire up a new system call for memory encryption keys Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:36 ` [RFC 04/12] x86/mm: Add helper functions to manage " Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 2:56 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 23:37 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 23:41 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 17:37 ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-07 22:36 ` [RFC 05/12] x86/mm: Add a helper function to set keyid bits in encrypted VMA's Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 17:57 ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-07 22:36 ` [RFC 06/12] mm: Add the encrypt_mprotect() system call Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 18:02 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-11 2:15 ` Alison Schofield [this message]
2018-09-07 22:37 ` [RFC 07/12] x86/mm: Add helper functions to track encrypted VMA's Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 3:17 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-07 22:37 ` [RFC 08/12] mm: Track VMA's in use for each memory encryption keyid Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 18:20 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-11 2:39 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:37 ` [RFC 09/12] mm: Restrict memory encryption to anonymous VMA's Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 18:21 ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 18:57 ` Dave Hansen
2018-09-10 21:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 21:09 ` Dave Hansen
2018-09-07 22:38 ` [RFC 10/12] x86/pconfig: Program memory encryption keys on a system-wide basis Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 1:46 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 18:24 ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-11 2:46 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11 14:31 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-07 22:38 ` [RFC 11/12] keys/mktme: Add a new key service type for memory encryption keys Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 3:29 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 21:47 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-15 0:06 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-17 10:48 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-17 22:34 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-07 22:39 ` [RFC 12/12] keys/mktme: Do not revoke in use " Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 1:10 ` [RFC 00/12] Multi-Key Total Memory Encryption API (MKTME) Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 19:10 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11 3:15 ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 17:29 ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-11 22:03 ` [RFC 11/12] keys/mktme: Add a new key service type for memory encryption keys David Howells
2018-09-11 22:39 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11 23:01 ` David Howells
2018-09-11 22:56 ` [RFC 04/12] x86/mm: Add helper functions to manage " David Howells
2018-09-12 11:12 ` [RFC 12/12] keys/mktme: Do not revoke in use " David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180911021529.GA1732@alison-desk.jf.intel.com \
--to=alison.schofield@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@intel.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox