linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/25] KVM SGX virtualization support

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: <YEkJXu262YDa8ZaK@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:01:02 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, seanjc@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
        haitao.huang@...el.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, jethro@...tanix.com,
        b.thiel@...teo.de, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/25] KVM SGX virtualization support

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:30:37AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 02:38:49PM +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
> > This series adds KVM SGX virtualization support. The first 14 patches starting
> > with x86/sgx or x86/cpu.. are necessary changes to x86 and SGX core/driver to
> > support KVM SGX virtualization, while the rest are patches to KVM subsystem.
> 
> Ok, I guess I'll queue 1-14 once Sean doesn't find anything
> objectionable then give Paolo an immutable commit to base the KVM stuff
> ontop.
> 
> Unless folks have better suggestions, ofc.

I'm otherwise cool with that, except patch #2.

It's based on this series:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/20210113233541.17669-1-jarkko@kernel.org/

It's not reasonable to create driver specific wrapper for
sgx_free_epc_page() because there is exactly *2* call sites of the function
in the driver.  The driver contains 10 call sites (11 after my NUMA patches
have been applied) of sgx_free_epc_page() in total.

Instead, it is better to add explicit EREMOVE to those call sites.

The wrapper only trashes the codebase. I'm not happy with it, given all the
trouble to make it clean and sound.

> Thx.
> 
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette


/Jarkko