From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for v24 v2 1/4] x86/sgx: Destroy enclave if EADD fails
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 01:26:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191106232659.GB13378@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191105225833.GD23297@linux.intel.com>
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 02:58:33PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:20:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > __sgx_encl_add_page() can only fail in the case of EPCM conflict at least
> > in non-artificial situations. Also, it consistent semantics in rollback is
> > something to pursue for. Thus, destroy enclave when the EADD fails as we do
> > when EEXTEND fails already.
>
> I still don't understand the motiviation for this change, EADD can fault
> and fail for reasons that are purely under userspace control. Yes, it's
> all but guaranteed to be a userspace bug, but I can't think of another
> instance in the kernel where the reaction to what is effectively an invalid
> param is to torch the whole thing. EEXTEND is special cased because the
> kernel doesn't have any other sane choice.
-EIO should be returned in both cases so that caller has a way to
determine if the ENCLS operations failed. They sum into a transaction
that is why the rollback must be the same for any sane semantics.
If the caller wants to purposely cause that, it is caller choice. And we
don't want to purposely support completely undeterministic behaviour
when there is no backwards compatibility to maintain.
/Jarkko
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-06 23:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-05 11:20 [PATCH for v24 v2 1/4] x86/sgx: Destroy enclave if EADD fails Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-11-05 11:20 ` [PATCH for v24 v2 2/4] x86/sgx: Remove a subordinate clause Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-11-06 22:03 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-11-05 11:20 ` [PATCH for v24 v2 3/4] x86/sgx: Detach sgx_encl_add_page() from struct sgx_enclave_add_pages Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-11-05 11:20 ` [PATCH for v24 v2 4/4] x86/sgx: add @count to &sgx_enclave_add_pages Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-11-05 22:52 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-11-06 23:20 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-11-08 8:13 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-11-05 22:58 ` [PATCH for v24 v2 1/4] x86/sgx: Destroy enclave if EADD fails Sean Christopherson
2019-11-06 23:26 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191106232659.GB13378@linux.intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).