linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: sgx_vepc: implement SGX_IOC_VEPC

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]

Date:   Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:03:49 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, seanjc@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org,
        yang.zhong@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: sgx_vepc: implement SGX_IOC_VEPC_REMOVE ioctl

On 12/10/21 18:57, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> +
>>   static const struct file_operations sgx_vepc_fops = {
>>          .owner          = THIS_MODULE,
>>          .open           = sgx_vepc_open,
>> +       .unlocked_ioctl = sgx_vepc_ioctl,
>> +       .compat_ioctl   = sgx_vepc_ioctl,
>>          .release        = sgx_vepc_release,
>>          .mmap           = sgx_vepc_mmap,
>>   };
> I went through this a few times, the code change is sound and
> reasoning makes sense in the commit message.
> 
> The only thing that I think that is IMHO lacking is a simple
> kselftest. I think a trivial test for SGX_IOC_VEP_REMOVE_ALL
> would do.

Yeah, a trivial test wouldn't cover a lot; it would be much better to at 
least set up a SECS, and check that the first call returns 1 and the 
second returns 0.  There is no existing test for /dev/sgx_vepc at all.

Right now I'm relying on Yang for testing this in QEMU, but I'll look 
into adding a selftest that does the full setup and runs an enclave in a 
guest.

Paolo