> From: Christopherson, Sean J > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 1:37 PM > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:29:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 4:32 PM Sean Christopherson > > <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > static int sgx_encl_add_page(struct sgx_encl *encl, unsigned long > > > addr, diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h > > > b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h index 47f58cfb6a19..0562775424a0 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h > > > @@ -1446,6 +1446,14 @@ > > > * @bpf_prog_free_security: > > > * Clean up the security information stored inside bpf prog. > > > * > > > + * Security hooks for Intel SGX enclaves. > > > + * > > > + * @enclave_load: > > > + * On success, returns 0 and optionally adjusts @allowed_prot > > > + * @vma: the source memory region of the enclave page being > loaded. > > > + * @prot: the initial protection of the enclave page. > > > > What do you mean "initial"? The page is always mapped PROT_NONE when > > this is called, right? I feel like I must be missing something here. > > Initial protection in the EPCM. Yet another reason to ignore SECINFO. I know you guys are talking in the background that all pages are mmap()'ed PROT_NONE. But that's an unnecessary limitation. And @prot here should be @target_vma->vm_flags&(VM_READ|VM_WRITE|VM_EXEC).
