linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/sgx: Implement EUPDATESVN and opportunistically call it during first EPC page alloc

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: <DM8PR11MB5750D5848DC0B3AC0EF00C30E7B52@DM8PR11MB5750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 06:54:14 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
CC: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>, "Scarlata, Vincent R"
	<vincent.r.scarlata@...el.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>, "bondarn@...gle.com"
	<bondarn@...gle.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
	"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, "Cai, Chong" <chongc@...gle.com>,
	"Raynor, Scott" <scott.raynor@...el.com>, "dionnaglaze@...gle.com"
	<dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/sgx: Implement EUPDATESVN and
 opportunistically call it during first EPC page alloc

> 
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 09:40:14AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:06:32AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2025-04-07 at 08:23 +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 06:53:17AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:11:25PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > current SGX kernel code does not handle such errors in any
> other
> > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > than notifying that operation failed for other ENCLS leaves. So,
> I don't
> > > > > > > > > > see why ENCLS[EUPDATESVN] should be different from
> existing
> > > > > > > behaviour?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > While not disagreeing fully (it depends on call site), in some
> > > > > > > > > situations it is more difficult to take more preventive actions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is a situation where we know that there are *zero* EPC
> pages in
> > > > > > > > > traffic so it is relatively easy to stop the madness, isn't it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I guess the best action would be make sgx_alloc_epc_page()
> return
> > > > > > > > > consistently -ENOMEM, if the unexpected happens.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But this would be very misleading imo. We do have memory,
> even page
> > > > > > > > allocation might function as normal in EPC, the only thing that is
> broken
> > > > > > > > can be EUPDATESVN functionality. Returning -ENOMEM in this
> case
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This makes it not misleading at all:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 	pr_err("EUPDATESVN: unknown error %d\n", ret);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since hardware should never return this, it indicates a kernel bug.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, so you propose in this case to print the above message,
> sgx_updatesvn
> > > > > > returning an error, and then NULL from
> __sgx_alloc_epc_page_from_node
> > > > > and
> > > > > > the __sgx_alloc_epc_page returning -ENOMEM after an iteration
> over
> > > > > > a whole set of numa nodes given that we will keep getting the
> unknown
> > > > > error
> > > > > > on each node upon trying to do an allocation from each one?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd disable ioctl's in this case and return -ENOMEM. It's a cheap sanity
> > > > > check. Should not ever happen, but if e.g., a new kernel patch breaks
> > > > > anything, it could help catching issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are talking here about situation that is never expected to happen
> so I
> > > > > don't think it is too heavy hammer here. Here it makes sense because
> not
> > > > > much effort is required to implement the counter-measures.
> > > >
> > > > OK, but does it really make sense to explicitly disable ioctls?
> > > > Note that everything *in practice* will be disabled simply because not a
> single page
> > > > anymore can be allocated from EPC since we are getting -ENOMEM on
> EPC
> > > > page allocation. Also, note that any approach we chose should be
> symmetrical
> > > > to SGX virtualization side also, which doesn´t use ioctls at all. Simply
> returning
> > > > -ENOMEM for page allocation in EPC seems like a correct symmetrical
> solution
> > > > that would work for both nativel enclaves and EPC pages allocated for
> VMs.
> > > > And nothing would  be able to proceed creating/managing enclaves at
> this point.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right, failing ioctls() doesn't cover SGX virtualization.  If we ever want to
> > > fail, we should fail the EPC allocation.
> >
> > "I guess the best action would be make sgx_alloc_epc_page() return
> >  consistently -ENOMEM, if the unexpected happens." -me
> >
> > >
> > > Btw, for the unknown error, and any other errors which should not
> happen,
> > > couldn't we use the ENCLS_WARN()?  AFAICT there are already cases that
> we are
> > > using ENCLS_WARN() for those "impossible-to-happen-errors".

Ok, so to summarise the approach I will be sending in the next version:

In case unknown error returns, issue ENCLS_WARN (uses WARN_ON underneath)
and return -ENOMEM from EPC page allocation. No other explicit ioctl disabling needed
since nothing can proceed anyhow if we cannot allocate a page from EPC.

Does this sound right? 

Best Regards,
Elena.