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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 06:31:10 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>, Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>, Chunyang Hui <sanqian.hcy@...fin.com>, Jordan Hand <jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com>, Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>, Seth Moore <sethmo@...gle.com>, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, 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, puiterwijk@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, yaozhangx@...gle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v33 11/21] x86/sgx: Linux Enclave Driver On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 08:59:02PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:08:33AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > +static int sgx_validate_secs(const struct sgx_secs *secs, > > + unsigned long ssaframesize) > > +{ > > + if (secs->size < (2 * PAGE_SIZE) || !is_power_of_2(secs->size)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + if (secs->base & (secs->size - 1)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + if (secs->miscselect & sgx_misc_reserved_mask || > > + secs->attributes & sgx_attributes_reserved_mask || > > + secs->xfrm & sgx_xfrm_reserved_mask) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + if (secs->attributes & SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT) { > > + if (secs->size > sgx_encl_size_max_64) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } else if (secs->size > sgx_encl_size_max_32) > > + return -EINVAL; > > These should be >=, not >, the SDM uses one of those fancy ≥ ligatures. > > Internal versions use more obvious pseudocode, e.g.: > > if ((DS:TMP_SECS.ATTRIBUTES.MODE64BIT = 1) AND > (DS:TMP_SECS.SIZE AND (~((1 << CPUID.18.0:EDX[15:8]) – 1))) > { > #GP(0); Updated as: static int sgx_validate_secs(const struct sgx_secs *secs) { u64 max_size = (secs->attributes & SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT) ? sgx_encl_size_max_64 : sgx_encl_size_max_32; if (secs->size < (2 * PAGE_SIZE) || !is_power_of_2(secs->size)) return -EINVAL; if (secs->base & (secs->size - 1)) return -EINVAL; if (secs->miscselect & sgx_misc_reserved_mask || secs->attributes & sgx_attributes_reserved_mask || secs->xfrm & sgx_xfrm_reserved_mask) return -EINVAL; if (secs->size >= max_size) return -EINVAL; /Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists