> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 06:53:17AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:11:25PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > > > > current SGX kernel code does not handle such errors in any other
> way
> > > > > > than notifying that operation failed for other ENCLS leaves. So, I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > see why ENCLS[EUPDATESVN] should be different from existing
> > > behaviour?
> > > > >
> > > > > While not disagreeing fully (it depends on call site), in some
> > > > > situations it is more difficult to take more preventive actions.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a situation where we know that there are *zero* EPC pages in
> > > > > traffic so it is relatively easy to stop the madness, isn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess the best action would be make sgx_alloc_epc_page() return
> > > > > consistently -ENOMEM, if the unexpected happens.
> > > >
> > > > But this would be very misleading imo. We do have memory, even page
> > > > allocation might function as normal in EPC, the only thing that is
> > > > broken
> > > > can be EUPDATESVN functionality. Returning -ENOMEM in this case
> seems
> > > > wrong.
> > >
> > > This makes it not misleading at all:
> > >
> > > pr_err("EUPDATESVN: unknown error %d\n", ret);
> > >
> > > Since hardware should never return this, it indicates a kernel bug.
> >
> > OK, so you propose in this case to print the above message, sgx_updatesvn
> > returning an error, and then NULL from __sgx_alloc_epc_page_from_node
> and
> > the __sgx_alloc_epc_page returning -ENOMEM after an iteration over
> > a whole set of numa nodes given that we will keep getting the unknown
> error
> > on each node upon trying to do an allocation from each one?
>
> I'd disable ioctl's in this case and return -ENOMEM. It's a cheap sanity
> check. Should not ever happen, but if e.g., a new kernel patch breaks
> anything, it could help catching issues.
>
> We are talking here about situation that is never expected to happen so I
> don't think it is too heavy hammer here. Here it makes sense because not
> much effort is required to implement the counter-measures.
OK, but does it really make sense to explicitly disable ioctls?
Note that everything *in practice* will be disabled simply because not a single
page
anymore can be allocated from EPC since we are getting -ENOMEM on EPC
page allocation. Also, note that any approach we chose should be symmetrical
to SGX virtualization side also, which doesn’t use ioctls at all. Simply
returning
-ENOMEM for page allocation in EPC seems like a correct symmetrical solution
that would work for both nativel enclaves and EPC pages allocated for VMs.
And nothing would be able to proceed creating/managing enclaves at this point.
Best Regards,
Elena.
