[PATCH v39 11/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX enclave driver

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 08:54:40PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:50:46AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > +	XA_STATE(xas, &encl->page_array, idx_start);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Disallow READ_IMPLIES_EXEC tasks as their VMA permissions might
> > +	 * conflict with the enclave page permissions.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC)
> > +		return -EACCES;
> > +
> > +	xas_for_each(&xas, page, idx_end)
> > +		if (!page || (~page->vm_max_prot_bits & vm_prot_bits))
> > +			return -EACCES;
> 
> You're iterating the array without holding any lock that the XArray knows
> about.  If you're OK with another thread adding/removing pages behind your
> back, or there's a higher level lock (the mmap_sem?) protecting the XArray
> from being modified while you walk it, then hold the rcu_read_lock()
> while walking the array.  Otherwise you can prevent modification by
> calling xas_lock(&xas) and xas_unlock()..

I backtracked this. The locks have been there from v21-v35. This is a
refactoring mistake in radix_tree to xarray migration happened in v36.
It's by no means intentional.

What is shoukd take is encl->lock.

The loop was pre-v36 like:

	idx_start = PFN_DOWN(start);
	idx_end = PFN_DOWN(end - 1);

	for (idx = idx_start; idx <= idx_end; ++idx) {
		mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
		page = radix_tree_lookup(&encl->page_tree, idx);
		mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);

		if (!page || (~page->vm_max_prot_bits & vm_prot_bits))
			return -EACCES;
	}

Looking at xarray.h and filemap.c, I'm thinking something along the
lines of:

	for (idx = idx_start; idx <= idx_end; ++idx) {
		mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
		page = xas_find(&xas, idx + 1);
		mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);

		if (!page || (~page->vm_max_prot_bits & vm_prot_bits))
			return -EACCES;
	}

Does this look about right?

/Jarkko