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]

Message-ID: <20200922162944.GA30874@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:29:44 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        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 Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 02:56:19PM +0200, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> 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.

Hmm, true.  The 1200+ cycles to write the hash MSRs (they're 3x slower than
other MSRs) seems scary, but compared to the 60k cycles it really doesn't
matter.

> > 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.

Ah, also true, I overlooked that an MSR reset would also kill the enclave.

So yeah, this can be simplified to:

	if (SGX_LC) {
		for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
			wrmsrl(...);
	}
	return __einit(...);