From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kai Huang <kai.huang@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 02:23:31 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 45/62] mm: Add the encrypt_mprotect() system call for MKTME
Message-Id: <1560824611.5187.100.camel@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: <keyrings.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20190508144422.13171-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
         <20190508144422.13171-46-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
         <CALCETrVCdp4LyCasvGkc0+S6fvS+dna=_ytLdDPuD2xeAr5c-w@mail.gmail.com>
         <3c658cce-7b7e-7d45-59a0-e17dae986713@intel.com>
         <CALCETrUPSv4Xae3iO+2i_HecJLfx4mqFfmtfp+cwBdab8JUZrg@mail.gmail.com>
         <5cbfa2da-ba2e-ed91-d0e8-add67753fc12@intel.com>
         <CALCETrWFXSndmPH0OH4DVVrAyPEeKUUfNwo_9CxO-3xy9awq0g@mail.gmail.com>
         <1560816342.5187.63.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <CALCETrVcrPYUUVdgnPZojhJLgEhKv5gNqnT6u2nFVBAZprcs5g@mail.gmail.com>
         <1560821746.5187.82.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <CALCETrUrFTFGhRMuNLxD9G9=GsR6U-THWn4AtminR_HU-nBj+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUrFTFGhRMuNLxD9G9=GsR6U-THWn4AtminR_HU-nBj+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>, Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>

On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 18:43 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:35 PM Kai Huang <kai.huang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm having a hard time imagining that ever working -- wouldn't it blow
> > > > > up if someone did:
> > > > > 
> > > > > fd = open("/dev/anything987");
> > > > > ptr1 = mmap(fd);
> > > > > ptr2 = mmap(fd);
> > > > > sys_encrypt(ptr1);
> > > > > 
> > > > > So I think it really has to be:
> > > > > fd = open("/dev/anything987");
> > > > > ioctl(fd, ENCRYPT_ME);
> > > > > mmap(fd);
> > > > 
> > > > This requires "/dev/anything987" to support ENCRYPT_ME ioctl, right?
> > > > 
> > > > So to support NVDIMM (DAX), we need to add ENCRYPT_ME ioctl to DAX?
> > > 
> > > Yes and yes, or we do it with layers -- see below.
> > > 
> > > I don't see how we can credibly avoid this.  If we try to do MKTME
> > > behind the DAX driver's back, aren't we going to end up with cache
> > > coherence problems?
> > 
> > I am not sure whether I understand correctly but how is cache coherence problem related to
> > putting
> > MKTME concept to different layers? To make MKTME work with DAX/NVDIMM, I think no matter which
> > layer
> > MKTME concept resides, eventually we need to put keyID into PTE which maps to NVDIMM, and kernel
> > needs to manage cache coherence for NVDIMM just like for normal memory showed in this series?
> > 
> 
> I mean is that, to avoid cache coherence problems, something has to
> prevent user code from mapping the same page with two different key
> ids.  If the entire MKTME mechanism purely layers on top of DAX,
> something needs to prevent the underlying DAX device from being mapped
> at the same time as the MKTME-decrypted view.  This is obviously
> doable, but it's not automatic.

Assuming I am understanding the context correctly, yes from this perspective it seems having
sys_encrypt is annoying, and having ENCRYPT_ME should be better. But Dave said "nobody is going to
do what you suggest in the ptr1/ptr2 example"? 

Thanks,
-Kai