#EU vs #browser vendors: “one has to be able to pick browser and search engine”. Actually that does not solve anything, and shows only that politicians know nothing about #software. More effective enforcement would be “one has to be able to pick a provider for the sync feature of a browser”.
Two relatively recent incidents that have limited the choice here:
@Dr_Emann Not fully yet understanding capabilities of vm-memory but enarx has two kinds of mappings:
So I’m looking into if I could extend vm-memory to provide the latter so then host/guest mmaps would have same parameters and two internal crates could be removed.
So lot’s of experimentation to do before it make sense to do anything for the actual project. If this draft of an idea would be possible with vm-memory, it would make doing the task whole a lot more feasible.
Turns out that vm-memory is WRONG crate for arbitrary mappings. E.g. it does not allows arbitray permissions for anonymous mappings. Instead mmap-rs is probably better idea:
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
//! Copyright (c) Jarkko Sakkinen 2024
#![deny(clippy::all)]
#![deny(clippy::pedantic)]
use mmap::MemoryMap;
fn main() {
let mem = MemoryMap::new(0x2000, &[
mmap::MapOption::MapReadable,
mmap::MapOption::MapWritable,
mmap::MapOption::MapExecutable,
]).unwrap_or_else(|_| std::process::exit(1));
println!("{}", mem.len());
}
MapOption
contains fields for file and similar stuff too.
Output:
~/work/local/hello-vm-memory master* 7m 13s
❯ target/debug/hello-vm-memory
GuestMemoryMmap { regions: [GuestRegionMmap { mapping: MmapRegion { addr: 0x7f593adbf000, size: 8192, bitmap: (), file_offset: None, prot: 3, flags: 16418, owned: true, hugetlbfs: None }, guest_base: GuestAddress(0) }] }
So, in case you’ve ever wondered, this is how you map anonymous memory with vm-memory crate:
//! Copyright (c) Jarkko Sakkinen 2024
#![deny(clippy::all)]
#![deny(clippy::pedantic)]
use vm_memory::{GuestAddress, GuestMemoryMmap};
fn main() {
let mem: GuestMemoryMmap<()> =
GuestMemoryMmap::from_ranges(&[(GuestAddress(0u64), 8192usize)]).unwrap();
println!("{:?}", mem);
}
The type parameter is for Bitmap.
I’ll do a small test program for each type of memory that we need in Enarx and after that make the changes to the project itself. Changes are simple but the code base is large so this is fastest way to formalize a decent patch.
So next step is /dev/kvm
test.
#Anonym has the same #privacy bug as #Signal:
Objectively we can thus come to the conclusion that it is belief system based #security.
Especially this is weird given the collaboration with a browser vendor.
Even for AGPL code confidentiality can be faked by emulating necessary opcodes with a modified QEMU.
The whole core idea of confidential computing is based on exactly to the ability for client to verify that the payload is unmodified. This is just fake marketing.
The security promise is exactly as truthful as it was for ANON phones that FBI sold to crooks ;-)
Call sites:
~/work/github/enarx/enarx main
❯ git grep -e Map\<
crates/enarx-config/src/lib.rs: pub env: HashMap<String, String>,
src/backend/binary.rs: pages: Map<perms::ReadWrite>,
src/backend/kvm/builder.rs: fn map(&mut self, pages: Map<perms::ReadWrite>, to: usize, with: u32) -> anyhow::Result<()> {
src/backend/kvm/builder.rs: pages: &Map<perms::ReadWrite>,
src/backend/kvm/mem.rs: backing: Map<perms::ReadWrite>,
src/backend/kvm/mem.rs: pub fn new(slot: Slot, backing: Map<perms::ReadWrite>) -> Self {
src/backend/kvm/mem.rs: backing_memory: &Map<perms::ReadWrite>,
src/backend/kvm/mod.rs: pages: Map<perms::ReadWrite>,
src/backend/sev/builder.rs: mut pages: Map<perms::ReadWrite>,
src/backend/sev/hasher.rs: fn map(&mut self, pages: Map<perms::ReadWrite>, to: usize, with: u32) -> anyhow::Result<()> {
src/backend/sgx/builder.rs: mmap: Map<perms::Unknown>,
src/backend/sgx/builder.rs: pages: Map<perms::ReadWrite>,
src/backend/sgx/hasher.rs: pages: Map<perms::ReadWrite>,
src/backend/sgx/mod.rs: mem: Map<perms::Unknown>,