On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:59:31 +0200 Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 09:29:34AM +1300, Kai Huang wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 15:19:32 +0200 Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 03:18:16PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 08:12:36PM +1300, Kai Huang wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 12:45:53 +0200 Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 01:21:54PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021, Kai Huang wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jar...@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EREMOVE takes a page and removes any association between that > > > > > > > > page and > > > > > > > > an enclave. It must be run on a page before it can be added > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > another enclave. Currently, EREMOVE is run as part of pages > > > > > > > > being freed > > > > > > > > into the SGX page allocator. It is not expected to fail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KVM does not track how guest pages are used, which means that > > > > > > > > SGX > > > > > > > > virtualization use of EREMOVE might fail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Break out the EREMOVE call from the SGX page allocator. This > > > > > > > > will allow > > > > > > > > the SGX virtualization code to use the allocator directly. > > > > > > > > (SGX/KVM > > > > > > > > will also introduce a more permissive EREMOVE helper). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Implement original sgx_free_epc_page() as > > > > > > > > sgx_encl_free_epc_page() to be > > > > > > > > more specific that it is used to free EPC page assigned to one > > > > > > > > enclave. > > > > > > > > Print an error message when EREMOVE fails to explicitly call > > > > > > > > out EPC > > > > > > > > page is leaked, and requires machine reboot to get leaked pages > > > > > > > > back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jar...@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > Co-developed-by: Kai Huang <kai.hu...@intel.com> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jar...@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kai Huang <kai.hu...@intel.com> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > v2->v3: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Fixed bug during copy/paste which results in SECS page and > > > > > > > > va pages are not > > > > > > > > correctly freed in sgx_encl_release() (sorry for the > > > > > > > > mistake). > > > > > > > > - Added Jarkko's Acked-by. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Acked-by should either be dropped or moved above > > > > > > > Co-developed-by to make > > > > > > > checkpatch happy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <sea...@google.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops, my bad. Yup, ack should be removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > /Jarkko > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jarkko, > > > > > > > > > > Your reply of your concern of this patch to the cover-letter > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/yekjxu262yda8...@kernel.org/ > > > > > > > > > > reminds me to do more sanity check of whether removing EREMOVE in > > > > > sgx_free_epc_page() will impact other code path or not, and I think > > > > > sgx_encl_release() is not the only place should be changed: > > > > > > > > > > - sgx_encl_shrink() needs to call sgx_encl_free_epc_page(), since > > > > > when this is > > > > > called, the VA page can be already valid -- there are other failures > > > > > can > > > > > trigger sgx_encl_shrink(). > > > > > > > > You right about this, good catch. > > > > > > > > Shrink needs to always do EREMOVE as grow has done EPA, which changes > > > > EPC page state. > > > > > > > > > - sgx_encl_add_page() should call sgx_encl_free_epc_page() in > > > > > "err_out_free:" > > > > > label, since the EPC page can be already valid when error happened, > > > > > i.e. when > > > > > EEXTEND fails. > > > > > > > > Yes, correct, good work! > > > > > > > > > Other places should be OK per my check, but I'd prefer to just > > > > > replacing all > > > > > sgx_free_epc_page() call sites in driver with > > > > > sgx_encl_free_epc_page(), with > > > > > one exception: sgx_alloc_va_page(), which calls sgx_free_epc_page() > > > > > when EPA > > > > > fails, in which case EREMOVE is not required for sure. > > > > > > > > I would not unless they require it. > > > > > > > > > Your idea, please? > > > > > > > > > > Btw, introducing a driver wrapper of sgx_free_epc_page() does make > > > > > sense to me, > > > > > because virtualization has a counterpart in sgx/virt.c too. > > > > > > > > It does make sense to use sgx_free_epc_page() everywhere where it's > > > > the right thing to call and here's why. > > > > > > > > If there is some unrelated regression that causes EPC page not get > > > > uninitialized when it actually should, doing extra EREMOVE could mask > > > > those bugs. I.e. it can postpone a failure, which can make a bug harder > > > > to backtrace. > > > > > > > > > > I.e. even though it is true that for correctly working code extra EREMOVE > > > is nil functionality, it could change semantics for buggy code. > > > > Thanks for feedback. Sorry I am not sure if I understand you. So if we don't > > want to bring functionality change, we need to replace sgx_free_epc_page() > > in > > all call sites with sgx_encl_free_epc_page(). To me for this patch only, > > it's > > better not to bring any functional change, so I intend to replace all (I now > > consider even leaving sgx_alloc_va_page() out is not good idea in *this* > > patch). > > > > Or do you just want to replace sgx_free_epc_page() with > > sgx_encl_free_epc_page() in sgx_encl_shrink() and sgx_encl_add_page(), as I > > pointed above? In this way there will be functional change in this patch, > > and > > we need to explicitly explain why leaving others out is OK in commit > > message. > > > > To me I prefer the former. > > The original purpose of this patch was exactly to remove EREMOVE > sgx_free_epc_page() and call it explicitly where it is required. That's > why I introduced sgx_reset_epc_page(). So the latter was actually the goal > of this patch at least when I did it. Now this is something completely > different. > > So, I don't consider myself author of this patch in any possible way, > because this is not what I intended. > > To move forward, for the next patch set version, you should change the > author field as yourself, and remove all my tags, and I will review it. > So you can work out this with former approach if you wish. > > I.e. my ack/nak/etc. apply to this patch because it's not my code.
OK. Thanks.
