linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v40 19/24] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX enclave call

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:   Sun, 8 Nov 2020 12:26:08 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        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, haitao.huang@...el.com, 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, mikko.ylinen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v40 19/24] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX
 enclave call

On 11/8/20 12:08 PM, Jethro Beekman wrote:
>> + * Most exceptions reported on ENCLU, including those that occur within the
>> + * enclave, are fixed up and reported synchronously instead of being delivered
>> + * via a standard signal. Debug Exceptions (#DB) and Breakpoints (#BP) are
>> + * never fixed up and are always delivered via standard signals. On synchrously

Jarrko, do you see the synchronously typo?                           ^	


>> + * reported exceptions, -EFAULT is returned
> This part about EFAULT is also bogus.

Do you have any suggestions to improve it?  What should it say instead?