[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YtrzwbLZjc+jURDI@google.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 19:00:17 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, dave@...1.net,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] x86/sgx: Allow enclaves to use Asynchrounous Exit
Notification
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 7/20/22 12:49, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> >> index 0c1ba6aa0765..96a73b5b4369 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> >> @@ -1022,9 +1022,7 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_func(struct kvm_cpuid_array *array, u32 function)
> >> * userspace. ATTRIBUTES.XFRM is not adjusted as userspace is
> >> * expected to derive it from supported XCR0.
> >> */
> >> - entry->eax &= SGX_ATTR_DEBUG | SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT |
> >> - SGX_ATTR_PROVISIONKEY | SGX_ATTR_EINITTOKENKEY |
> >> - SGX_ATTR_KSS;
> >> + entry->eax &= SGX_ATTR_PRIV_MASK | SGX_ATTR_UNPRIV_MASK;
> >
> > It may seem like a maintenance burdern, and it is to some extent, but I think it's
> > better for KVM to have to explicitly "enable" each flag. There is no guarantee
> > that a new feature will not require additional KVM enabling, i.e. we want the pain
> > of having to manually update KVM so that we get "feature X isn't virtualized"
> > complaints and not "I upgraded my kernel and my enclaves broke" bug reports.
> >
> > I don't think it's likely that attribute-based features will require additional
> > enabling since there aren't any virtualization controls for the ENCLU side of
> > things (ENCLU is effectively disabled by blocking ENCLS[ECREATE]), but updating
> > KVM isn't particularly difficult so I'd rather be paranoid.
>
> How about something where KVM gets to keep a discrete mask, but where
> it's at least defined next to the attributes, something like:
>
> /*
> * These attributes will be advertised to KVM guests as being
> * available. This includes privileged attributes. Only add
> * to this list when host-side KVM does not require additional
> * enabling for the attribute.
> */
> #define SGX_ATTR_KVM_MASK (SGX_ATTR_DEBUG | \
> SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT | \
> SGX_ATTR_PROVISIONKEY | \
> SGX_ATTR_EINITTOKENKEY | \
> SGX_ATTR_KSS | \
> SGX_ATTR_ASYNC_EXIT_NOTIFY)
>
> That at least has a *chance* of someone seeing it who goes to add a new
> attribute.
Hmm, what if we enforce it in code with a compile-time assert? That will make it
even harder to screw things up, and it also avoids a scenario where someone
extends SGX_ATTR_KVM_MASK without getting approval from KVM folks. And conversely,
KVM won't need to touch SGX files if there's ever a need to tweak KVM behavior.
/*
* Index 1: SECS.ATTRIBUTES. ATTRIBUTES are restricted a la
* feature flags. Advertise all supported flags, including
* privileged attributes that require explicit opt-in from
* userspace. ATTRIBUTES.XFRM is not adjusted as userspace is
* expected to derive it from supported XCR0.
*/
#define KVM_SGX_ATTR_ALLOWED_MASK (SGX_ATTR_DEBUG | \
SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT | \
SGX_ATTR_PROVISIONKEY | \
SGX_ATTR_EINITTOKENKEY | \
SGX_ATTR_KSS | \
SGX_ATTR_ASYNC_EXIT_NOTIFY)
#define KVM_SGX_ATTR_DENIED_MASK (0)
/*
* Assert that KVM explicitly allows or denies exposing all
* features, i.e. detect attempts to add kernel support without
* also updating KVM.
*/
BUILD_BUG_ON((KVM_SGX_ATTR_ALLOWED_MASK | KVM_SGX_ATTR_DENIED_MASK) !=
(SGX_ATTR_PRIV_MASK | SGX_ATTR_UNPRIV_MASK));
entry->eax &= KVM_SGX_ATTR_ALLOWED_MASK;
entry->ebx &= 0;
break;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists