[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z8eoW4rUV5U9JUci@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 03:26:51 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch/x86: Fix size overflows in sgx_encl_create()
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 04:30:21PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/4/25 16:19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 04:18:03PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 3/4/25 16:06, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * This is a micro-architectural requirement. ECREATE would detect this
> >>> + * too without mentionable overhead but this check guarantees also that
> >>> + * the space calculations for EPC and shmem allocations never overflow.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (!is_power_of_2(secs->size))
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >> Isn't it a plain old documented architectural requirement?
> > Yes, but it requires some explanation why it exists here instead of
> > counting on ECREATE.
> >
> > What do you suggest?
>
> /*
> * ECREATE would detect this too, but checking here also ensures
> * that the 'encl_size' calculations below can never overflow.
> */
Looks reasonable to me!
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists