From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FAEC433E0 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 06:36:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883F722C7E for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 06:36:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 883F722C7E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9C03F6B0007; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 01:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 970326B0008; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 01:36:42 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 886926B000A; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 01:36:42 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0144.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.144]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738B76B0007 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 01:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin01.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E618249980 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 06:36:42 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77739710244.01.twig52_2613d492757b Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41AA1004D5A6 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 06:36:41 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: twig52_2613d492757b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4292 Received: from out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.130]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 06:36:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R871e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04357;MF=tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=16;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0UMf9zfj_1611470187; Received: from 30.25.221.71(mailfrom:tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0UMf9zfj_1611470187) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:36:28 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Allows ioctl PROVISION to execute before CREATE To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: Sean Christopherson , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Shuah Khan , haitao.huang@intel.com, Kai Huang , x86@kernel.org, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Jia Zhang References: <20210118133335.98907-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <5037ee56-0211-f16c-3ea0-86cf8146b7f8@linux.alibaba.com> From: Tianjia Zhang Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:36:27 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 1/21/21 6:37 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:34:49AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:57:18AM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 1/20/21 4:05 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021, Tianjia Zhang wrote: >>>>> In function sgx_encl_create(), the logic of directly assigning >>>>> value to attributes_mask determines that the call to >>>>> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_PROVISION must be after the command of >>>>> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_CREATE. If change this assignment statement to >>>>> or operation, the PROVISION command can be executed earlier and >>>>> more flexibly. >>>>> >>>>> Reported-by: Jia Zhang >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c | 2 +- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c >>>>> index f45957c05f69..0ca3fc238bc2 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c >>>>> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static int sgx_encl_create(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct sgx_secs *secs) >>>>> encl->base = secs->base; >>>>> encl->size = secs->size; >>>>> encl->attributes = secs->attributes; >>>>> - encl->attributes_mask = SGX_ATTR_DEBUG | SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT | SGX_ATTR_KSS; >>>>> + encl->attributes_mask |= SGX_ATTR_DEBUG | SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT | SGX_ATTR_KSS; >>>> >>>> Alternatively, move the existing code to sgx_open()? Initializing the field >>>> when the encl object is allocated feels more correct. >>>> >>> >>> >>> This seems like a good idea. Thanks for your suggestion. I have sent v2 >>> patch, include the next two patches. >> >> Did you ask from Sean about suggested-by's? Now it looks like >> that doing these patches were originally proposed by Sean. > > Please do not add tags from people *unauthentically*. I do not > see anything from Sean to any of the patches that would suggest > adding those tags. You are basically just stamping that to all > patches, which he has given a code review. Can you stop doing > this? > > /Jarkko > I am very sorry for the trouble caused to you, I have made improvements in the new patch, thanks for your suggestions. Best regards, Tianjia