linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/2] x86: sgx_vepc: implement ioctl to EREMOVE all pages

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: <fb04eae72ca0b24fdb533585775f2f20de9f5beb.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:42:56 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/2] x86: sgx_vepc: implement ioctl to EREMOVE
 all pages

On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 12:19 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/09/21 09:10, Yang Zhong wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 09:11:51AM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > Based on discussions from the previous week(end), this series implements
> > > a ioctl that performs EREMOVE on all pages mapped by a /dev/sgx_vepc
> > > file descriptor.  Other possibilities, such as closing and reopening
> > > the device, are racy.
> > > 
> > > The patches are untested, but I am posting them because they are simple
> > > and so that Yang Zhong can try using them in QEMU.
> > > 
> > 
> >    Paolo, i re-implemented one reset patch in the Qemu side to call this ioctl(),
> >    and did some tests on Windows and Linux guest, the Windows/Linux guest reboot
> >    work well.
> > 
> >    So, it is time for me to send this reset patch to Qemu community? or wait for
> >    this kernel patchset merged? thanks!
> 
> Let's wait for this patch to be accepted first.  I'll wait a little more 
> for Jarkko and Dave to comment on this, and include your "Tested-by".
> 
> I will also add cond_resched() on the final submission.

Why these would be conflicting tasks? I.e. why could not QEMU use
what is available now and move forward using better mechanism, when
they are available?

BTW, I do all my SGX testing ATM in QEMU (for some weeks). IMHO, it's
already "good enough" for many tasks, even if this fallback case is
not perfectly sorted out.

/Jarkko