Re: [PATCH v28 21/22] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX enclave call

From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@intel.com>
Cc: Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	dave.hansen@intel.com, Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
	"Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@intel.com>,
	andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, "Svahn,
	Kai" <kai.svahn@intel.com>,
	bp@alien8.de, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	luto@kernel.org, kai.huang@intel.com,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@redhat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
	Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@redhat.com>,
	Harald Hoyer <harald@redhat.com>,
	Lily Sturmann <lsturman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v28 21/22] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX enclave call
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 16:57:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200317235711.GC14566@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <acf660c0-7b8e-911c-8640-75fe43e5c384@intel.com>

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:36:57PM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> On 3/17/2020 3:09 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:40:34PM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> >>Hi Nathaniel,
> >>
> >>I reread your email today and thought I might have misunderstood your email
> >>earlier. What changes are you asking for exactly? Is that just passing @leaf
> >>in %ecx rather than in %eax? If so, I wouldn't have any problem. I agree
> >>with you that the resulted API would then be callable from C, even though it
> >>wouldn't be able to return back to C due to tampered %rbx. But I think the
> >>vDSO API can preserve %rbx too, given it is used by both EENTER and EEXIT
> >>(so is unavailable for parameter passing anyway). Alternatively, the C
> >>caller can setjmp() to be longjmp()'d back from within the exit handler.
> >
> >Yep, exactly.  The other proposed change that is fairly straightforward is
> >to make the save/restore of %rsp across the exit handler call relative
> >instead of absolute, i.e. allow the exit handler to modify %rsp.  I don't
> >think this would conflict with the Intel SDK usage model?
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S
> >index 94a8e5f99961..05d54f79b557 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S
> >+++ b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S
> >@@ -139,8 +139,9 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(__vdso_sgx_enter_enclave)
> >         /* Pass the untrusted RSP (at exit) to the callback via %rcx. */
> >         mov     %rsp, %rcx
> >
> >-       /* Save the untrusted RSP in %rbx (non-volatile register). */
> >+       /* Save the untrusted RSP offset in %rbx (non-volatile register). */
> >         mov     %rsp, %rbx
> >+       and     $0xf, %rbx
> >
> >         /*
> >          * Align stack per x86_64 ABI. Note, %rsp needs to be 16-byte aligned
> >@@ -161,8 +162,8 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(__vdso_sgx_enter_enclave)
> >         mov     0x20(%rbp), %rax
> >         call    .Lretpoline
> >
> >-       /* Restore %rsp to its post-exit value. */
> >-       mov     %rbx, %rsp
> >+       /* Undo the post-exit %rsp adjustment. */
> >+       lea     0x20(%rsp,%rbx), %rsp
> >
> Yep. Though it looks a bit uncommon, I do think it will work.

Heh, I had about the same level of confidence.

I'll put together a set of patches tomorrow and post them to linux-sgx (and
cc relevant parties).  It'll be easier to continue the discussion with code
to look at and we can stop spamming LKML for a bit :-)