[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOrVhQr9ad_4en2D5GTTqDsJGXqszBmscgenn_87mDxvUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:54:01 -0700
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, LKML <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>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, asapek@...gle.com,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, chenalexchen@...gle.com,
conradparker@...gle.com, cyhanish@...gle.com,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@...el.com>, josh@...htriplett.org,
kai.huang@...el.com, kai.svahn@...el.com, kmoy@...gle.com,
Christian Ludloff <ludloff@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, nhorman@...hat.com,
npmccallum@...hat.com, puiterwijk@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, yaozhangx@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v38 21/24] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX
enclave call
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:43 AM Yu, Yu-cheng <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/2020 11:23 AM, 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.
>
> Hi Jarkko,
>
> These 1: and 2: targets are reached only from these few lines? If they
> are direct call/jmp targets, I think it is OK in terms of CET. If they
> are reached from an instruction like "jmp *%rax", then we need to put in
> an "endbr64".
>
This also isn't compatible with shadow stack.
--
H.J.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists