linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/3] x86/sgx: eextend ioctl

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:11:25 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Raoul Strackx <raoul.strackx@...tanix.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/3] x86/sgx: eextend ioctl

On 4/1/21 7:56 AM, Raoul Strackx wrote:
> 
> SOLUTION OF THIS PATCH
> This patch adds a new ioctl to enable userspace to execute EEXTEND leaf 
> functions per 256 bytes of enclave memory. This enables enclaves to be 
> build as specified by enclave providers.

I think tying the user ABI to the SGX architecture this closely is a
mistake.

Do we need another ioctl() or can we just relax the existing add_pages
ioctl() to allow unaligned addresses?