lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v38 10/24] mm: Add vm_ops->mprotect()
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:11:37PM -0500, Haitao Huang wrote:
> > For me this has caused months of confusion and misunderstanding of this
> > feature. I only recently realized that "oh, right, we invented this".
> >
> > They are contrived scenarios enough that they should be considered when
> > the workloads hit.
> >
> > Either we fully support noexec or not at all. Any "partial" thing is a
> > two edged sword: it can bring some robustness with the price of
> > complexity and possible unknown uknown scenarios where they might become
> > API issue.
> >
> > I rather think later on how to extend API in some way to enable such
> > contrivid scenarios rather than worrying about how this could be abused.
> >
> > The whole SGX is complex beast already so lets not add any extra when
> > there is no a hard requirement to do so.
> >
> > I'll categorically deny noexec in the next patch set version.
> >
> > /Jarkko
>
> There are use cases supported currently in which enclave binary is received
> via IPC/RPC and held in buffers before EADD. Denying noexec altogether would
> break those, right?

I do not see why data cannot be provided at run-time. AFAIK, it is not
different from executables how this works when it comes to noexec.

/Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-24 23:56    [W:0.211 / U:1.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site