Date:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 16:14:29 +0000
From:   "Dhanraj, Vijay" <vijay.dhanraj@...el.com>
To:     "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
CC:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sgx: Add SGX selftest
 augment_via_eaccept_long

Hi Reinette,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatre, Reinette <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 9:35 PM
> To: Dhanraj, Vijay <vijay.dhanraj@...el.com>; Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko@...nel.org>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>; linux-
> sgx@...r.kernel.org; Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>; open list:KERNEL
> SELFTEST FRAMEWORK <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>; open list <linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sgx: Add SGX selftest
> augment_via_eaccept_long
> 
> Hi Vijay,
> 
> On 8/16/2022 6:27 PM, Dhanraj, Vijay wrote:
> > Hi Jarkko, Reinette,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 4:34 PM
> >> To: Chatre, Reinette <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
> >> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>; linux-
> >> sgx@...r.kernel.org; Dhanraj, Vijay <vijay.dhanraj@...el.com>; Shuah
> >> Khan <shuah@...nel.org>; open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK
> <linux-
> >> kselftest@...r.kernel.org>; open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sgx: Add SGX selftest
> >> augment_via_eaccept_long
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 09:26:40AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >>> Hi Vijay,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much for digging into this. A few comments below.
> >>>
> >>> On 8/15/2022 4:39 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> >>>> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ static const uint64_t MAGIC =
> >>>> 0x1122334455667788ULL;  static const uint64_t MAGIC2 =
> >>>> 0x8877665544332211ULL;  vdso_sgx_enter_enclave_t
> >>>> vdso_sgx_enter_enclave;
> >>>>
> >>>> +static const unsigned long edmm_size = 8589934592; //8G
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> Could you please elaborate how this constant was chosen? I
> >>> understand that this test helped to uncover a bug and it is useful
> >>> to add to the kernel. When doing so this test will be run on systems
> >>> with a variety of SGX memory sizes, could you please elaborate (and
> >>> add a
> >>> snippet) how 8GB is the right value for all systems?
> >>
> >> It is the only constant I know for sure that some people (Vijay and
> >> Haitao) have been able to reproduce the bug.
> >>
> >> Unless someone can show that the same bug reproduces with a smaller
> >> constant, changing it would make the whole test irrelevant.
> >
> > I tried with 2GB and it always succeed and with 4GB was able to repro
> sporadically. But with 8GB failure was consistent. One thing to note is even
> with 8GB Haitao couldn't reproduce this every time. So not sure if it good for
> all the systems but on my ICX system, I was able to consistently repro with
> this value.
> >
> 
> Could all of this information be placed in a description of this constant? At this
> time it appears to be arbitrary.

Yes it makes sense to record the reason for this constant.
> 
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	if (!sgx2_supported())
> >>>> +		SKIP(return, "SGX2 not supported");
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	ASSERT_TRUE(setup_test_encl(ENCL_HEAP_SIZE_DEFAULT, &self-
> >>> encl,
> >>>> +_metadata));
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	memset(&self->run, 0, sizeof(self->run));
> >>>> +	self->run.tcs = self->encl.encl_base;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	for (i = 0; i < self->encl.nr_segments; i++) {
> >>>> +		struct encl_segment *seg = &self->encl.segment_tbl[i];
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		total_size += seg->size;
> >>>> +		TH_LOG("test enclave: total_size = %ld, seg->size = %ld",
> >> total_size, seg->size);
> >>>> +	}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	/*
> >>>> +	 * Actual enclave size is expected to be larger than the loaded
> >>>> +	 * test enclave since enclave size must be a power of 2 in bytes while
> >>>> +	 * test_encl does not consume it all.
> >>>> +	 */
> >>>> +	EXPECT_LT(total_size + edmm_size, self->encl.encl_size);
> >>>
> >>> Will this test ever fail?
> >>
> >> With a *quick* look: no.
> >>
> >> Vijay, what was the point of this check?
> >
> > Yes we can remove this check. I tried to copy from `augment_via_eaccept`
> and just changed the request size.
> >
> 
> In augment_via_eaccept the check is required since augment_via_eaccept
> assumes that there is enough address space in the existing enclave for
> dynamic memory addition without needing to change the enclave size. If
> anybody later changes the test enclave to break this assumption then that
> check will pick it up.


Got it, thanks. Yes this check is can be removed.

> 
> In this new test the enclave size is set to accommodate the planned dynamic
> memory addition and thus adding a test to check if the enclave has enough
> space for the dynamic memory is not needed.
> 
> >>>> +	TH_LOG("Entering enclave to run EACCEPT for each page of %zd
> >> bytes may take a while ...",
> >>>> +			edmm_size);
> >>>> +	eaccept_op.flags = SGX_SECINFO_R | SGX_SECINFO_W |
> >> SGX_SECINFO_REG | SGX_SECINFO_PENDING;
> >>>> +	eaccept_op.ret = 0;
> >>>> +	eaccept_op.header.type = ENCL_OP_EACCEPT;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	for (i = 0; i < edmm_size; i += 4096) {
> >>>> +		eaccept_op.epc_addr = (uint64_t)(addr + i);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		EXPECT_EQ(ENCL_CALL(&eaccept_op, &self->run, true), 0);
> >>>> +		if (self->run.exception_vector == 14 &&
> >>>> +			self->run.exception_error_code == 4 &&
> >>>> +			self->run.exception_addr == self->encl.encl_base) {
> >>>> +			munmap(addr, edmm_size);
> >>>> +			SKIP(return, "Kernel does not support adding pages
> >> to initialized enclave");
> >>>> +		}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		EXPECT_EQ(self->run.exception_vector, 0);
> >>>> +		EXPECT_EQ(self->run.exception_error_code, 0);
> >>>> +		EXPECT_EQ(self->run.exception_addr, 0);
> >>>> +		ASSERT_EQ(eaccept_op.ret, 0);
> >>>> +		ASSERT_EQ(self->run.function, EEXIT);
> >>>> +	}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	/*
> >>>> +	 * New page should be accessible from within enclave - attempt to
> >>>> +	 * write to it.
> >>>> +	 */
> >>>
> >>> This portion below was also copied from previous test and by only
> >>> testing a write to the first page of the range the purpose is not
> >>> clear. Could you please elaborate if the intention is to only test
> >>> accessibility of the first page and why that is sufficient?
> >>
> >> It is sufficient because the test reproduces the bug. It would have
> >> to be rather elaborated why you would possibly want to do more than
> that.
> 
> That is fair. An accurate comment (currently an inaccurate copy&paste)
> would help to explain this part of the test.
> 
> >>>> +	put_addr_op.value = MAGIC;
> >>>> +	put_addr_op.addr = (unsigned long)addr;
> >>>> +	put_addr_op.header.type = ENCL_OP_PUT_TO_ADDRESS;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EQ(ENCL_CALL(&put_addr_op, &self->run, true), 0);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EEXIT(&self->run);
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EQ(self->run.exception_vector, 0);
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EQ(self->run.exception_error_code, 0);
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EQ(self->run.exception_addr, 0);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	/*
> >>>> +	 * Read memory from newly added page that was just written to,
> >>>> +	 * confirming that data previously written (MAGIC) is present.
> >>>> +	 */
> >>>> +	get_addr_op.value = 0;
> >>>> +	get_addr_op.addr = (unsigned long)addr;
> >>>> +	get_addr_op.header.type = ENCL_OP_GET_FROM_ADDRESS;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EQ(ENCL_CALL(&get_addr_op, &self->run, true), 0);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EQ(get_addr_op.value, MAGIC);
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EEXIT(&self->run);
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EQ(self->run.exception_vector, 0);
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EQ(self->run.exception_error_code, 0);
> >>>> +	EXPECT_EQ(self->run.exception_addr, 0);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	munmap(addr, edmm_size);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>>  /*
> >>>>   * SGX2 page type modification test in two phases:
> >>>>   * Phase 1:
> >>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.h
> >>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.h
> >>>> index fc585be97e2f..fe5d39ac0e1e 100644
> >>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.h
> >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.h
> >>>> @@ -35,7 +35,8 @@ extern unsigned char sign_key[];  extern unsigned
> >>>> char sign_key_end[];
> >>>>
> >>>>  void encl_delete(struct encl *ctx); -bool encl_load(const char
> >>>> *path, struct encl *encl, unsigned long heap_size);
> >>>> +bool encl_load(const char *path, struct encl *encl, unsigned long
> >> heap_size,
> >>>> +			   unsigned long edmm_size);
> >>>>  bool encl_measure(struct encl *encl);  bool encl_build(struct encl
> >>>> *encl);  uint64_t encl_get_entry(struct encl *encl, const char
> >>>> *symbol); diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/sigstruct.c
> >>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/sigstruct.c
> >>>> index 50c5ab1aa6fa..6000cf0e4975 100644
> >>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/sigstruct.c
> >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/sigstruct.c
> >>>> @@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ bool encl_measure(struct encl *encl)
> >>>>  	if (!ctx)
> >>>>  		goto err;
> >>>>
> >>>> -	if (!mrenclave_ecreate(ctx, encl->src_size))
> >>>> +	if (!mrenclave_ecreate(ctx, encl->encl_size))
> >>>>  		goto err;
> >>>>
> >>>>  	for (i = 0; i < encl->nr_segments; i++) {
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Looking at mrenclave_ecreate() the above snippet seems separate from
> >>> this test and incomplete since it now obtains encl->encl_size but
> >>> continues to compute it again internally. Should this be a separate fix?
> >>
> >> I would remove this part completely but this also needs comment from
> Vijay.
> >
> > If we restrict the large enclave size just for this test, then the above change
> can be reverted. Calling ` mrenclave_ecreate`  with src_size esults in EINIT
> failure and I think the reason is because of incorrect MRenclave.
> 
> From what I understand this change is needed since the enclave size is no
> longer just the size of all the segments at enclave creation. I think it is
> incomplete though since it still recomputes the enclave size even though it is
> now provided as parameter.
> This change does not need to be part of this test addition.

I see your point and this change can be removed from the test.
> 
> Reinette

Regards, Vijay

Powered by blists - more mailing lists