linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v38 14/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE

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:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:56:19 +0200
From:   Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        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,
        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 2020-09-22 10:29, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:17:00PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> That was effectively my original suggestion as well, check for a stale cache
>> and retry indefinitely.  I capitulated because it did feel like I was being
>> overly paranoid.  I'm obviously ok going the retry indefinitely route :-).
>>
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180904163546.GA5421@linux.intel.com
> 
> Right, so if EINIT is so expensive, why does it matter how many cyccles
> WRMSR has? I.e., you don't really need to cache - you simply write the 4
> MSRs and you're done. Simple.
> 
> As to "indefinitely" - caller can increment a counter which counts
> how many times it returned SGX_INVALID_EINITTOKEN. I guess when it
> reaches some too high number which should not be reached during normal
> usage patterns, you can give up and issue a message to say that counter
> reached max retries or so but other than that, you should be ok. That
> thing is running interruptible in a loop anyway...

I don't see why you'd need to retry indefinitely. Yes the MSRs may not match the cached value for “reasons”, but if after you've written them once it still doesn't work, clearly either 1) an “unhelpful” VMM is actively messing with the MSRs which I'd say is at best a VMM bug or 2) there was an EPC reset and your enclave is now invalid anyway, so no need to EINIT.

--
Jethro Beekman | Fortanix


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4490 bytes)