[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5af533e2-5bfd-8edc-0eaa-6fd3ddebb211@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 11:42:53 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
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 4/2/21 11:31 AM, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> On 2021-04-02 17:53, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 4/2/21 1:38 AM, Jethro Beekman wrote:
>>>> So, we're talking here about pages that have been EEADDED, but for
>>>> which we do not want to include the entire contents of the page?
>>>> Do these contents always include the beginning of the page, or can
>>>> the holes be anywhere?
>>> Holes can be anywhere, and EEXTEND calls need not be sequential in
>>> memory address or even relate to the most recently EADDed page.
>>
>> I think you're referring to the SGX architecture itself here. The
>> architecture permits this, right?
>
> Yes.
>
>> But, why would an enclave loader application ever do this?
>
> e.g. to save space
How does this save space, exactly? What space does it save?
Let's say I want to add 4352 bytes of data to an enclave. Today, I have
to page-align the beginning and end of that 4352 bytes, and call the add
ioctl() to add the two resulting pages. It consumes two EPC pages.
With EEXTEND, if I want to add the data, I only need to page-align the
beginning of the data. I call add_page on the first page, then eextend
on the 256 bytes. It consumes two EPC pages.
I guess you can argue that this saves padding out the second page, which
would *theoretically* temporarily eat up one extra page of non-enclave
memory and the cost of a 256-byte memcpy.
>> Is this something we want to support in Linux?
>
> Why not? Is there a good reason to not fully support this part of the
> CPU architecture?
We don't blindly support CPU features in Linux. They need to do
something *useful*. I'm still missing what this does which is useful.
Does any actual, real-world enclave want this functionality? Why?
P.S. There are plenty of things you can do with the SGX architecture
that we probably won't ever implement in Linux.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists