[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200928005842.GC6704@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 03:58:42 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
Cedric Xing <cedric.xing@...el.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, asapek@...gle.com, bp@...en8.de,
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,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v38 21/24] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX
enclave call
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 07:23:59PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/09/2020 12:28, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..adbd59d41517
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S
> > @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
> > +SYM_FUNC_START(__vdso_sgx_enter_enclave)
> > <snip>
> > +.Lretpoline:
> > + call 2f
> > +1: pause
> > + lfence
> > + jmp 1b
> > +2: mov %rax, (%rsp)
> > + ret
>
> I hate to throw further spanners in the work, but this is not compatible
> with CET, and the user shadow stack work in progress.
CET goes beyond my expertise. Can you describe, at least rudimentary,
how this code is not compatible?
I know CET only conceptual level (separate stack holding return
addresses as an measure against return oriented programming (ROP)).
> Whichever of these two large series lands first is going to inflict
> fixing this problem on the other.
>
> As the vdso text is global (to a first approximation), it must not be a
> retpoline if any other process is liable to want to use CET-SS.
Why is that?
> If the retpoline really does need to stay, then the vdso probably needs
> to gain suitable __x86_indirect_thunk_%reg thunks which are patched at
> boot based on the system properties.
>
> ~Andrew
aka without CET it is patched? With CET, not?
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists