[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a2d2ba5c-c7b3-a76b-594f-df2e14234b1d@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:54:20 -0700
From: "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, serge.ayoun@...el.com,
shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
kai.svahn@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] An alternative __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() to
allow enclave/host parameter passing using untrusted stack
On 7/10/2019 3:46 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:08:37AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
>>> With these conclusions I think the current vDSO API is sufficient for
>>> Linux.
>>
>> The new vDSO API is to support data exchange on stack. It has nothing to do
>> with debugging. BTW, the community has closed on this.
>
> And how that is useful?
There is a lengthy discussion on its usefulness so I don't want to
repeat. In short, it allows using untrusted stack as a convenient method
to exchange data with the enclave. It is currently being used by Intel's
SGX SDK for e/o-calls parameters.
>> The CFI directives are for stack unwinding. They don't affect what the code
>> does so you can just treat them as NOPs if you don't understand what they
>> do. However, they are useful to not only debuggers but also exception
>> handling code. libunwind also has a setjmp()/longjmp() implementation based
>> on CFI directives.
>
> Of course I won't merge code of which usefulness I don't understand.
Sure.
Any other questions I can help with?
> /Jarkko
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists