linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: sgx_vepc: extract sgx_vepc_remove

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: <2bc53d87b3bacf78e2bbed8efcdbbf8553a7d6d5.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:05:05 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, yang.zhong@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: sgx_vepc: extract sgx_vepc_remove_page

On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 07:36 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 13/09/21 23:13, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Apart from reclaiming, /dev/sgx_vepc might disappear between the first
> > > open() and subsequent ones.
> > 
> > If /dev/sgx_vepc disappears, why is it a problem *for the software*, and
> > not a sysadmin problem?
> 
> Rather than disappearing, it could be that a program first gets all the 
> resources it needs before it gets malicious input, and then enter a 
> restrictive sandbox.  In this case open() could be completely forbidden.
> 
> I will improve the documentation and changelogs when I post the non-RFC 
> version; that could have been done better, sorry.
> 

No worries, just trying to get bottom of the actual issue.

/Jarkko