[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200921182753.GK5901@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 20:27:53 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...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>,
Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@...cle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
asapek@...gle.com, 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 v38 14/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_INIT
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:10:21AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The LE pubkey hash MSRs are special snowflakes. They get reset to Intel's
> default key on any loss of EPC, e.g. if the system does a suspend/resume
> cycle. The approach we took (obviously) is to assume the kernel's cache can
> be stale at any given time. The alternative would be to try and track loss
> of EPC conditions and emulate the reset, but that's a bit dicey on bare
> metal as any missed case would hose SGX, and in a VM it's theoretically
> impossible to handle as a particularly unhelpful VMM could emulate loss of
> EPC at will.
Lemme try to understand this: the system could suspend/resume right
here:
sgx_update_lepubkeyhash_msrs(lepubkeyhash, false);
<--- suspend/resume
ret = __einit(sigstruct, token, sgx_get_epc_addr(secs));
and thus the MSRs would have the default key so you'd need the second
__einit() call?
But what happens if the system suspends before the second __einit()
call?
Why don't you simply drop that @enforce param and let the caller handle
any retries?
Or is the scenario something different?
Or you could perhaps disable suspend/resume around it, maybe something
like lock_system_sleep() or so, from a quick grep...
> Yes, this need a big fat comment.
Oh yeah.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists