linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 18/22] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver

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]

Date:   Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:00:02 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com, serge.ayoun@...el.com,
        shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        kai.svahn@...el.com, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 18/22] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:46:03PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 10:00:57AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > What do we gain by a single buffer vs. separate buffers?  The ioctl()
> > would be slightly smaller but it seems like the actual code would be
> > more complex.
> 
> I'm fine with either. It was just a suggestion.
> 
> > The enclave build process also utilizes the backing as temp storage
> > to avoid having to alloc kernel memory when queueing pages to be added
> > by the worker thread (which reminds me that I wanted to document why a
> > worker thread is used).  Keeping this behavior would effectively make
> > providing backing mandatory.
> 
> Would it be a problem just allocate those pages with alloc_page() and
> free them in the worker thread?
> 
> > Are there any potential complications with ENCLS consuming userspace
> > pointers?  We'd have to wrap them with user_access_{begin,end}() and
> > probably tweak the fixup, but I assume having the fixup handler means
> > we're generally ok?
> 
> Last time I did it I used get_user_pages() for pinning. I'm not sure
> why I should do anything but just re-use that.

What about VA page swapping? Not saying that it'd have to be done right
now but we need to answer whether it is enclave local or a global asset.
If it is local it would also require an argument.

I will most likely won't fix this for v17 because this detail needs
careful consideration.

/Jarkko