lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] An alternative __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() to allow enclave/host parameter passing using untrusted stack
From
Date
On 7/11/2019 2:36 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 03:54:20PM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
>> On 7/10/2019 3:46 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:08:37AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
>>>>> With these conclusions I think the current vDSO API is sufficient for
>>>>> Linux.
>>>>
>>>> The new vDSO API is to support data exchange on stack. It has nothing to do
>>>> with debugging. BTW, the community has closed on this.
>>>
>>> And how that is useful?
>>
>> There is a lengthy discussion on its usefulness so I don't want to repeat.
>> In short, it allows using untrusted stack as a convenient method to exchange
>> data with the enclave. It is currently being used by Intel's SGX SDK for
>> e/o-calls parameters.
>>
>>>> The CFI directives are for stack unwinding. They don't affect what the code
>>>> does so you can just treat them as NOPs if you don't understand what they
>>>> do. However, they are useful to not only debuggers but also exception
>>>> handling code. libunwind also has a setjmp()/longjmp() implementation based
>>>> on CFI directives.
>>>
>>> Of course I won't merge code of which usefulness I don't understand.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> Any other questions I can help with?
>
> I dissected my concerns in other email. We can merge this feature after
> v21 if it makes sense.

Sent out v3 of vDSO changes last night. I hope your concerns have been
properly addressed.

The new vDSO API is a community consensus. I can help on whatever
technical problems you may have but I don't see a reason you should
reject it.

> /Jarkko
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-11 21:49    [W:0.137 / U:48.296 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site