linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] selftests/sgx: retry the ioctls returned with EAGAIN

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 13:08:25 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vijay Dhanraj <vijay.dhanraj@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Paul Menzel" <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
        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 v2 5/6] selftests/sgx: retry the ioctls returned with
 EAGAIN

Hi Jarkko,

On 8/31/2022 10:38 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> @@ -458,16 +459,30 @@ TEST_F_TIMEOUT(enclave, unclobbered_vdso_oversubscribed_remove, 900)
>  	modt_ioc.offset = heap->offset;
>  	modt_ioc.length = heap->size;
>  	modt_ioc.page_type = SGX_PAGE_TYPE_TRIM;
> -
> +	count = 0;
>  	TH_LOG("Changing type of %zd bytes to trimmed may take a while ...",
>  	       heap->size);
> -	ret = ioctl(self->encl.fd, SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPES, &modt_ioc);
> -	errno_save = ret == -1 ? errno : 0;
> +	do {
> +		ret = ioctl(self->encl.fd, SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPES, &modt_ioc);
> +
> +		errno_save = ret == -1 ? errno : 0;
> +		if (errno_save != EAGAIN)
> +			break;
> +
> +		EXPECT_EQ(modt_ioc.result, 0);
> +
> +		count += modt_ioc.count;
> +		modt_ioc.offset += modt_ioc.count;
> +		modt_ioc.length -= modt_ioc.count;
> +		modt_ioc.result = 0;

>From the discussion in V1 it seemed that you were planning to add a check
on the result value instead of just overwriting it. Are you still planning to
do this?

Reinette