[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181207200935.GE10404@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 12:09:35 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
"Dr. Greg Wettstein" <greg@...ellic.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] x86/vdso: Add __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() to
wrap SGX enclave transitions
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:02 AM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 09:56:09AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 8:51 AM Sean Christopherson
> >> <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
> >>> I like that the exit handler allows userspace to trap/panic with the full
> >>> call stack in place, and in a dedicated path, i.e. outside of the basic
> >>> enter/exit code. An exit handler probably doesn't fundamentally change
> >>> what userspace can do with respect to debugging/reporting, but I think
> >>> it would actually simplify some userspace implementations, e.g. I'd use
> >>> it in my tests like so:
> >>>
> >>> long fault_handler(struct sgx_enclave_exit_info *exit_info, void *tcs, void *priv)
> >>> {
> >>> if (exit_info->leaf == SGX_EEXIT)
> >>> return 0;
> >>>
> >>> <report exception and die/hang>
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hmm. That't not totally silly, although you could accomplish almost
> >> the same thing by wrapping the vDSO helper in another function.
> >
> > True, but I think there's value in having the option to intercept an
> > exception at the exact(ish) point of failure, without having to return
> > up the stack.
> >
> > The enclave has full access to the process' memory space, including the
> > untrsuted stack. It's not too far fetched to envision a scenario where
> > the enclave corrupts the stack even if the enclave isn't intentionally
> > using the stack, e.g. the host passes in variable that a points at the
> > stack instead of whatever memory is supposed to be shared between the
> > enclave and host. It'd be nice to have the ability to triage something
> > like that without having to e.g. configure breakpoints on the stack.
>
> Ah, I see. You’re saying that, if the non-enclave stare is corrupted such
> that RIP is okay and RSP still points somewhere reasonable but the return
> address is garbage, then we can at least get to the fault handler and print
> something?
Yep. Even for something more subtle like GPR corruption it could dump the
entire call stack before attempting to return back up.
> This only works if the fault handler pointer itself is okay, though, which
> somewhat limits the usefulness, given that its pointer is quite likely to
> be on the stack very close to the return address.
Yeah, it's not a silver bullet by any means, but it does seem useful for at
least some scenarios. Even exploding when invoking the handler instead of
at a random point might prove useful, e.g. "calling my exit handler exploded,
maybe my enclave corrupted the stack!".
> I really wish the ENCLU instruction had seen fit to preserve some registers.
Speaking of preserving registers, the asm blob needs to mark RBX as
clobbered since it's modified for EEXIT.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists