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  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:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:37:32 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, haitao.huang@...el.com,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Jia Zhang <zhang.jia@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Allows ioctl PROVISION to execute before CREATE

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:34:49AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:57:18AM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 1/20/21 4:05 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> > > > In function sgx_encl_create(), the logic of directly assigning
> > > > value to attributes_mask determines that the call to
> > > > SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_PROVISION must be after the command of
> > > > SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_CREATE. If change this assignment statement to
> > > > or operation, the PROVISION command can be executed earlier and
> > > > more flexibly.
> > > > 
> > > > Reported-by: Jia Zhang <zhang.jia@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c | 2 +-
> > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c
> > > > index f45957c05f69..0ca3fc238bc2 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c
> > > > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static int sgx_encl_create(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct sgx_secs *secs)
> > > >   	encl->base = secs->base;
> > > >   	encl->size = secs->size;
> > > >   	encl->attributes = secs->attributes;
> > > > -	encl->attributes_mask = SGX_ATTR_DEBUG | SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT | SGX_ATTR_KSS;
> > > > +	encl->attributes_mask |= SGX_ATTR_DEBUG | SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT | SGX_ATTR_KSS;
> > > 
> > > Alternatively, move the existing code to sgx_open()?  Initializing the field
> > > when the encl object is allocated feels more correct.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > This seems like a good idea. Thanks for your suggestion. I have sent v2
> > patch, include the next two patches.
> 
> Did you ask from Sean about suggested-by's? Now it looks like
> that doing these patches were originally proposed by Sean.

Please do not add tags from people *unauthentically*. I do not
see anything from Sean to any of the patches that would suggest
adding those tags. You are basically just stamping that to all
patches, which he has given a code review. Can you stop doing
this?

/Jarkko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists