[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <db12016d-8719-daa0-4742-7d7c43dd464d@fortanix.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:59:28 +0100
From: Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>
To: Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
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>,
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 2020-03-16 14:57, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 9:32 AM Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-03-15 18:53, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I'm not sure they're sensible? By departing from the ENCLU calling convention, both the VDSO
>> and the wrapper become more complicated.
>
> For the vDSO, only marginally. I'm counting +4,-2 instructions in my
> suggestions. For the wrapper, things become significantly simpler.
>
>> The wrapper because now it needs to implement all
>> kinds of logic for different behavior depending on whether the VDSO is or isn't available.
>
> When isn't the vDSO available?
When you're not on Linux. Or when you're on an old kernel.
--
Jethro Beekman | Fortanix
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4054 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists