[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
On 7/11/2019 2:38 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 04:37:41PM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
>> On 7/10/2019 4:15 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 01:46:28AM +0300, 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?
>>>>> 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.
>>> I re-read the cover letter [1] because it usually is the place
>>> to "pitch" a feature.
>>> It fails to address two things:
>>> 1. How and in what circumstances is an untrusted stack is a better
>>> vessel for handling exceptions than the register based approach
>>> that we already have?
>> We are not judging which vessel is better (or the best) among all possible
>> vessels. We are trying to enable more vessels. Every vessel has its pros and
>> cons so there's *no* single best vessel.
> I think reasonable metric is actually the coverage of the Intel SDK
> based enclaves. How widely are they in the wild? If the user base is
> large, it should be reasonable to support this just based on that.

I don't know how many existing enclaves out there, but definitely larger
than 0 (zero), while user base for the old API is definitely 0. What are
you worrying, really?

> /Jarkko

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-11 21:53    [W:0.158 / U:14.996 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site