From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
Chunyang Hui <sanqian.hcy@antfin.com>,
Jordan Hand <jorhand@linux.microsoft.com>,
Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>,
Seth Moore <sethmo@google.com>,
Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@oracle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
asapek@google.com, bp@alien8.de, cedric.xing@intel.com,
chenalexchen@google.com, conradparker@google.com,
cyhanish@google.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
haitao.huang@intel.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
kai.huang@intel.com, kai.svahn@intel.com, kmoy@google.com,
ludloff@google.com, luto@kernel.org, nhorman@redhat.com,
puiterwijk@redhat.com, rientjes@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
yaozhangx@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v38 13/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGES
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:41:04 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200921114104.GB6038@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200919000918.GB21189@sjchrist-ice>
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 05:09:19PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 03:39:32PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 03:20:39PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:09:40PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Haitao Huang wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:02:06 -0500, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right, I do get the OOM case but wouldn't in that case the reasonable
> > > > > > thing to do destroy the enclave that is not even running? I mean that
> > > > > > means that we are globally out of EPC.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say it could be a policy, but not the only one. If it does not make
> > > > > much difference to kernel, IMHO we should not set it in stone now.
> > > > > Debugging is also huge benefit to me.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, an EPC cgroup is the proper way to define/enforce what happens when
> > > > there is EPC pressure. E.g. if process A is consuming 99% of the EPC, then
> > > > it doesn't make sense to unconditionally kill enclaves from process B. If
> > > > the admin wants to give process A priority, so be it, but such a decision
> > > > shouldn't be baked into the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > This series obviously doesn't provide an EPC cgroup, but that doesn't mean
> > > > we can't make decisions that will play nice with a cgroup in the future.
> > >
> > > Here's the core issue why the API "as is used to be" does not work:
> > >
> > > if (ret == -EIO) {
> > > mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
> > > sgx_encl_destroy(encl);
> > > mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
> > > }
> > >
> > > It would be better to instead whitelist *when* the enclave is preserved.
> > >
> > > if (ret != -ENOMEM) {
> > > mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
> > > sgx_encl_destroy(encl);
> > > mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
> > > }
> > >
> > > That is the information we *deterministically* want to know. Otherwise,
> > > we will live in ultimate chaos.
> > >
> > > Only this way can caller know when there are means to continue, and when
> > > to quit. I.e. the code is whitelisting wrong way around currently.
> >
> > Actually since the state cannot corrupt unless EADD or EEXTEND fails it
> > is fine to have the enclave alive on any other error condition. I think
>
> EADD and EEXTEND failure don't corrupt state. Killing the enclave if EEXTEND
> fails makes sense because failure at that point is either due to a kernel bug
> or loss of EPC, both of which are fatal to the enclave.
This is also true. I meant by corrupt state e.g. a kernel bug, which
causes uninitalizes pages go the free queue.
I'd rephrase this in kdoc as: "The function deinitializes enclave and
returns -EIO when EPC is lost, while entering to a new power cycle".
Documentation describes only legit behaviour, let's ignore the corrupt
part.
> EADD is a little different, e.g. it could fault due to a bad source address,
> in which case the failure is not technically fatal. But, Jarkko wanted to
> have consistent behavior for EADD and EEXTEND failures, and practically
> speaking the enclave is probably hosed anyways if EADD fails, i.e. killing the
> enclave on EADD failure isn't a sticking point (for me).
We need to figure out own return value for EADD, but I agree with this.
I would go with -EFAULT as we do when source VMA is no available. Does
this make sense to you?
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-21 11:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-15 11:04 [PATCH v38 00/24] Intel SGX foundations Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:04 ` [PATCH v38 01/24] x86/cpufeatures: x86/msr: Add Intel SGX hardware bits Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 02/24] x86/cpufeatures: x86/msr: Add Intel SGX Launch Control " Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 03/24] x86/mm: x86/sgx: Signal SIGSEGV with PF_SGX Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 04/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX microarchitectural data structures Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 05/24] x86/sgx: Add wrappers for ENCLS leaf functions Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 06/24] x86/cpu/intel: Detect SGX support Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 07/24] x86/cpu/intel: Add nosgx kernel parameter Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 08/24] x86/sgx: Initialize metadata for Enclave Page Cache (EPC) sections Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 09/24] x86/sgx: Add __sgx_alloc_epc_page() and sgx_free_epc_page() Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 10/24] mm: Add vm_ops->mprotect() Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 11/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX enclave driver Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 12/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_CREATE Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 13/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGES Jarkko Sakkinen
[not found] ` <op.0q2prldowjvjmi@mqcpg7oapc828.gar.corp.intel.com>
2020-09-17 16:02 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-17 18:35 ` Haitao Huang
2020-09-18 2:09 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-09-18 12:20 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-18 12:39 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
[not found] ` <20200919000918.GB21189@sjchrist-ice>
2020-09-21 11:41 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2020-09-21 16:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-09-21 18:49 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-21 19:44 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-21 19:57 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-09-21 21:24 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-21 19:58 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-17 16:03 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 14/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_INIT Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 15/24] x86/sgx: Enable provisioning for remote attestation Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-10-01 17:17 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 16/24] x86/sgx: Add a page reclaimer Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 17/24] x86/sgx: ptrace() support for the SGX driver Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 18/24] x86/vdso: Add support for exception fixup in vDSO functions Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 19/24] x86/fault: Add helper function to sanitize error code Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 20/24] x86/traps: Attempt to fixup exceptions in vDSO before signaling Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 21/24] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX enclave call Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-28 1:32 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 22/24] selftests/x86: Add a selftest for SGX Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 23/24] docs: x86/sgx: Document SGX micro architecture and kernel internals Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:05 ` [PATCH v38 24/24] x86/sgx: Update MAINTAINERS Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:28 [PATCH v38 00/24] Intel SGX foundations Jarkko Sakkinen
2020-09-15 11:28 ` [PATCH v38 13/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGES Jarkko Sakkinen
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=20200921114104.GB6038@linux.intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=asapek@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=cedric.xing@intel.com \
--cc=chenalexchen@google.com \
--cc=conradparker@google.com \
--cc=cyhanish@google.com \
--cc=darren.kenny@oracle.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=haitao.huang@intel.com \
--cc=haitao.huang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jethro@fortanix.com \
--cc=jorhand@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
--cc=kai.svahn@intel.com \
--cc=kmoy@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ludloff@google.com \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@redhat.com \
--cc=npmccallum@redhat.com \
--cc=puiterwijk@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=sanqian.hcy@antfin.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=sethmo@google.com \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yaozhangx@google.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).