linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/25] x86/sgx: Initialize virtual EPC driver even when SGX driver is disabled

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: <YE4M8JGGl9Xyx51/@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 14 Mar 2021 17:25:23 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
        haitao.huang@...el.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/25] x86/sgx: Initialize virtual EPC driver even
 when SGX driver is disabled

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:07:36PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:05:36PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 01:44:58PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > > Modify sgx_init() to always try to initialize the virtual EPC driver,
> > > > even if the SGX driver is disabled.  The SGX driver might be disabled
> > > > if SGX Launch Control is in locked mode, or not supported in the
> > > > hardware at all.  This allows (non-Linux) guests that support non-LC
> > > > configurations to use SGX.
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > > index 44fe91a5bfb3..8c922e68274d 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > > > @@ -712,7 +712,15 @@ static int __init sgx_init(void)
> > > >  		goto err_page_cache;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -	ret = sgx_drv_init();
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Always try to initialize the native *and* KVM drivers.
> > > > +	 * The KVM driver is less picky than the native one and
> > > > +	 * can function if the native one is not supported on the
> > > > +	 * current system or fails to initialize.
> > > > +	 *
> > > > +	 * Error out only if both fail to initialize.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	ret = !!sgx_drv_init() & !!sgx_vepc_init();
> > > 
> > > I love this code.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > 
> > I'm still wondering why this code let's go through when sgx_drv_init()
> > succeeds and sgx_vepc_init() fails.
> > 
> > The inline comment explains only the mirrored case (which does make
> > sense).
> 
> I.e. if sgx_drv_init() succeeds, I'd expect that sgx_vepc_init() must
> succeed. Why expect legitly anything else?
 
Apologies coming with these ideas at this point, but here is what this
led me.

I think that the all this complexity comes from a bad code structure.

So, what is essentially happening here:

- We essentially want to make EPC always work.
- Driver optionally.

So what this sums to is something like:

        ret = sgx_epc_init();
        if (ret) {
                pr_err("EPC initialization failed.\n");
                return ret;
        }

        ret = sgx_drv_init();
        if (ret)
                pr_info("Driver could not be initialized.\n");

        /* continue */

I.e. I think there should be a single EPC init, which does both EPC
bootstrapping and vepc, and driver initialization comes after that.

/Jarkko