linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] x86/vdso: Add __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() to wrap SGX enclave transitions

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:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:44:11 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] x86/vdso: Add __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() to
 wrap SGX enclave transitions

On 12/7/18 10:15 AM, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> This is not sufficient to support the Fortanix SGX ABI calling
> convention, which was designed to be mostly compatible with the SysV
> 64-bit calling convention. The following registers need to be passed in
> to an enclave from userspace: RDI, RSI, RDX, R8, R9, R10. The following
> registers need to be passed out from an enclave to userspace: RDI, RSI,
> RDX, R8, R9.

Are you asking nicely to change the new Linux ABI to be consistent with
your existing ABI?  Or, are you saying that the new ABI *must* be
compatible with this previous out-of-tree implementation?