linux-kernel - Re: RFC: userspace exception fixups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7d965299-0402-f730-6e1a-515a836a3956@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 13:50:31 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, nhorman@...hat.com,
        npmccallum@...hat.com, "Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
        shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
        adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org
Subject: Re: RFC: userspace exception fixups

On 11/8/18 1:16 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 12:10:30PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 11/8/18 12:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Hmm.  The idea being that the SDK preserves RBP but not RSP.  That's
>>> not the most terrible thing in the world.  But could the SDK live with
>>> something more like my suggestion where the vDSO supplies a normal
>>> function that takes a struct containing registers that are visible to
>>> the enclave?  This would make it extremely awkward for the enclave to
>>> use the untrusted stack per se, but it would make it quite easy (I
>>> think) for the untrusted part of the SDK to allocate some extra memory
>>> and just tell the enclave that *that* memory is the stack.
>>
>> I really think the enclave should keep its grubby mitts off the
>> untrusted stack.  There are lots of ways to get memory, even with
>> stack-like semantics, that don't involve mucking with the stack itself.
>>
>> I have not heard a good, hard argument for why there is an absolute
>> *need* to store things on the actual untrusted stack.
> 
> Convenience and performance are the only arguments I've heard, e.g. so
> that allocating memory doesn't require an extra EEXIT->EENTER round trip.

Well, for the first access, it's going to cost a bunch asynchronous
exits to fault in all the stack pages.  Instead of that, if you had a
single area, or an explicit out-call to allocate and populate the area,
you could do it in a single EEXIT and zero asynchronous exits for demand
page faults.

So, it might be convenient, but I'm rather suspicious of any performance
arguments.