linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] selftests/x86: Augment SGX selftest to test new __vdso_sgx_enter

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:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:59:37 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Cedric Xing <cedric.xing@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave <dave.hansen@...el.com>, nhorman@...hat.com,
        npmccallum@...hat.com, Serge <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
        Shay <shay.katz-zamir@...el.com>,
        Haitao <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Kai <kai.svahn@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Kai <kai.huang@...el.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] selftests/x86: Augment SGX selftest to test
 new __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() and its callback interface

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 06:29:06PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> What's not tested here is running this code with EFLAGS.TF set and
> making sure that it unwinds correctly.  Also, Jarkko, unless I missed
> something, the vDSO extable code likely has a bug.  If you run the
> instruction right before ENCLU with EFLAGS.TF set, then do_debug()
> will eat the SIGTRAP and skip to the exception handler.  Similarly, if
> you put an instruction breakpoint on ENCLU, it'll get skipped.  Or is
> the code actually correct and am I just remembering wrong?

The code is indeed broken, and I don't see a sane way to make it not
broken other than to never do vDSO fixup on #DB or #BP.  But that's
probably the right thing to do anyways since an attached debugger is
likely the intended recipient the 99.9999999% of the time.

The crux of the matter is that it's impossible to identify whether or
not a #DB/#BP originated from within an enclave, e.g. an INT3 in an
enclave will look identical to an INT3 at the AEP.  Even if hardware
provided a magic flag, #DB still has scenarios where the intended
recipient is ambiguous, e.g. data breakpoint encountered in the enclave
but on an address outside of the enclave, breakpoint encountered in the
enclave and a code breakpoint on the AEP, etc...