[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200617000655.GB19300@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:06:55 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.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,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, asapek@...gle.com, bp@...en8.de,
cedric.xing@...el.com, chenalexchen@...gle.com,
conradparker@...gle.com, cyhanish@...gle.com,
dave.hansen@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, kai.huang@...el.com, kai.svahn@...el.com,
kmoy@...gle.com, ludloff@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org,
nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com, puiterwijk@...hat.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, yaozhangx@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v32 00/21] Intel SGX foundations
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:09:58PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 01:59:03PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 10:51:57AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > v29:
> > > * The selftest has been moved to selftests/sgx. Because SGX is an execution
> > > environment of its own, it really isn't a great fit with more "standard"
> > > x86 tests.
> > >
> > > The RSA key is now generated on fly and the whole signing process has
> > > been made as part of the enclave loader instead of signing the enclave
> > > during the compilation time.
> > >
> > > Finally, the enclave loader loads now the test enclave directly from its
> > > ELF file, which means that ELF file does not need to be coverted as raw
> > > binary during the build process.
> >
> > Something in the above rework broke the selftest. I'm getting intermittent
> > EINIT failures with SGX_INVALID_SIGNATURE. I'm guessing it's related to
> > the dynamic RSA key generation, e.g. only ~15% of runs fail. Verified that
> > v29 selftest fails and v28 passes. My internal tests also pass, i.e. it's
> > all but guaranteed to be a selftest issue, not a kernel issue.
> >
> > Jarkko, I don't have bandwidth to dig into this right now, hopefully this
> > reproduces in your environment. Let me know if that's not the case.
>
> I haven't experienced but I'll try to stress test it.
>
> Just to know how complex test should reproduce your issue, can you
> reproduce the issue by running the selftest sequentially in a loop or
> do I need to do something more complex than that?
I didn't even get that complex, just running the selftest manually will
eventually fail for me, e.g. the first failure I saw was a one-off run of
the selftest.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists