linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v38 11/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX enclave driver

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: <20201001184956.GB15664@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Oct 2020 21:49:56 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.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>,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, asapek@...gle.com, bp@...en8.de,
        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 11/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX enclave driver

On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 10:36:53AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:28:29PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > +int __init sgx_drv_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> > +	u64 attr_mask, xfrm_mask;
> > +	int ret;
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SGX_LC)) {
> > +		pr_info("The public key MSRs are not writable.\n");
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	cpuid_count(SGX_CPUID, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > +	sgx_misc_reserved_mask = ~ebx | SGX_MISC_RESERVED_MASK;
> > +	sgx_encl_size_max_64 = 1ULL << ((edx >> 8) & 0xFF);
> > +	sgx_encl_size_max_32 = 1ULL << (edx & 0xFF);
> > +
> > +	cpuid_count(SGX_CPUID, 1, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > +
> > +	attr_mask = (((u64)ebx) << 32) + (u64)eax;
> > +	sgx_attributes_reserved_mask = ~attr_mask | SGX_ATTR_RESERVED_MASK;
> > +
> > +	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSXSAVE)) {
> > +		xfrm_mask = (((u64)edx) << 32) + (u64)ecx;
> > +
> > +		for (i = 2; i < 64; i++) {
> > +			cpuid_count(0x0D, i, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > +			if ((1UL << i) & xfrm_mask)
> 
> Any reason not to use BIT()?  The max size computations are arguably not
> bit operation, but XFRM is a set of bits.

AFAIK, yes.

If you have bandwidth drop a patch for this and provision thing. I'm
busy with the documentation. If not, that's fine, I'll do it once I'm
able to.

Thanks.

/Jarkko