linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] selftests/sgx: Add SGX selftest augment_via_eaccept

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

Message-ID: <YxFIR/cFZIi2Ef23@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 03:03:19 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        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 4/6] selftests/sgx: Add SGX selftest
 augment_via_eaccept_long

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:12:22PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On 9/1/2022 3:22 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 01:07:35PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> On 8/31/2022 10:38 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> >>>  tools/testing/selftests/sgx/load.c |   5 +-
> >>>  tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.c | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>  tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.h |   3 +-
> >>
> >> Is this test passing on your system? This version is missing the change to
> >> mrenclave_ecreate() that causes SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_INIT to fail when I try it out.
> > 
> > I *did* get a pass in my test machine. Hmm... I'll check if
> > the kernel tree was out-of-sync, which could be the reason.
> > 
> > I do not compile kernel on that machine but have the kernel
> > tree for running selftests. So there is a possiblity for
> > a human error. Thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> On my system I encounter the failure below (V1 of this series
> did not have this problem):
> 
> [SNIP]
> ok 11 enclave.augment_via_eaccept
> #  RUN           enclave.augment_via_eaccept_long ...
> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_INIT failed: Operation not permitted
> # main.c:236:augment_via_eaccept_long:0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000002000 0x03
> # main.c:236:augment_via_eaccept_long:0x0000000000002000 0x0000000000001000 0x05
> # main.c:236:augment_via_eaccept_long:0x0000000000003000 0x0000000000006000 0x03
> # main.c:236:augment_via_eaccept_long:0x0000000000009000 0x0000000000001000 0x03
> # main.c:251:augment_via_eaccept_long:Failed to initialize the test enclave.
> # main.c:1260:augment_via_eaccept_long:Expected 0 (0) != setup_test_encl(ENCL_HEAP_SIZE_DEFAULT, &self->encl, _metadata, EDMM_SIZE_LONG) (0)
> # augment_via_eaccept_long: Test terminated by assertion
> #          FAIL  enclave.augment_via_eaccept_long
> not ok 12 enclave.augment_via_eaccept_long
> [SNIP]
> 
> ...
> 
> >>>  
> >>>  static const uint64_t MAGIC = 0x1122334455667788ULL;
> >>>  static const uint64_t MAGIC2 = 0x8877665544332211ULL;
> >>> +/* Message-ID: <DM8PR11MB55912A7F47A84EC9913A6352F6999@...PR11MB5591.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> */
> >>> +static const uint64_t EDMM_SIZE_LONG = 8L * 1024L * 1024L * 1024L;
> >>> +static const uint64_t TIMEOUT_LONG = 900; /* seconds */
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Apologies if my feedback was vague - I actually think that the comments in V1 added
> >> valuable information, it was just the variation in formatting that was distracting.
> > 
> > IMHO message ID is pretty good reference. Can you
> > propose how would you redo it to minimize the number
> > of iterations in the series?
> 
> The message ID is a good reference but it points to an email thread
> and as used here it is unclear what part of that thread is referred to.
> What you had in V1 was very helpful so it could be:
> 
> /*
>  * The size was chosen based on a bug report:
>  * Message-ID: <DM8PR11MB55912A7F47A84EC9913A6352F6999@...PR11MB5591.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
>  */
> 
> I am not sure about Message-ID vs url. The latter may be more
> convenient since the user needs to first search which inbox the message-ID belongs
> to before the message can be accessed. Not a big deal though so I think
> either works.

This is definitely better, I'll use it. Thanks.

> 
> Reinette

BR, Jarkko