linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Fix deadloop in __sgx_alloc_epc

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]

Message-ID: <50688c67-59a3-46e4-a2b5-10c1e93d4b3c@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 07:03:33 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Zhimin Luo <zhimin.luo@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Fix deadloop in __sgx_alloc_epc_page()

On 8/29/24 23:02, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> Also, I do think we should probably add some kind of sanity warning to
>> the SGX code in another patch.  If a node on an SGX system has CPUs and
>> memory, it's very likely it will also have some EPC.  It can be
>> something soft like a pr_info(), but I think it would be nice to have.
> I think there are systems with valid reason to not setup an EPC section
> per node, e.g. a 8 sockets system with SNC=2, there would be a total of
> 16 nodes and it's not possible to have one EPC section per node because
> the upper limit of EPC sections is 8. I'm not sure a warning is
> appropriate here, what do you think?

While possible, those systems are pretty rare.  I don't think a
softly-worded pr_info() will scare anyone too much.