linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v28 21/22] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX enclave call

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:   Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:53:33 -0400
From:   Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dave.hansen@...el.com,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
        "Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        "Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, bp@...en8.de,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, luto@...nel.org,
        kai.huang@...el.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        cedric.xing@...el.com, Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
        Harald Hoyer <harald@...hat.com>,
        Lily Sturmann <lsturman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v28 21/22] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX
 enclave call

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 9:25 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 01:30:07PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > Currently, the selftest has a wrapper around
> > __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() which preserves all x86-64 ABI callee-saved
> > registers (CSRs), though it uses none of them. Then it calls this
> > function which uses %rbx but preserves none of the CSRs. Then it jumps
> > into an enclave which zeroes all these registers before returning.
> > Thus:
> >
> >   1. wrapper saves all CSRs
> >   2. wrapper repositions stack arguments
> >   3. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() modifies, but does not save %rbx
> >   4. selftest zeros all CSRs
> >   5. wrapper loads all CSRs
> >
> > I'd like to propose instead that the enclave be responsible for saving
> > and restoring CSRs. So instead of the above we have:
> >   1. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() saves %rbx
> >   2. enclave saves CSRs
> >   3. enclave loads CSRs
> >   4. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() loads %rbx
> >
> > I know that lots of other stuff happens during enclave transitions,
> > but at the very least we could reduce the number of instructions
> > through this critical path.
>
> What Jethro said and also that it is a good general principle to cut
> down the semantics of any vdso as minimal as possible.
>
> I.e. even if saving RBX would make somehow sense it *can* be left
> out without loss in terms of what can be done with the vDSO.

Please read the rest of the thread. Sean and I have hammered out some
sensible and effective changes.