lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v28 21/22] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX enclave call
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 9:25 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 01:30:07PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > Currently, the selftest has a wrapper around
> > __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() which preserves all x86-64 ABI callee-saved
> > registers (CSRs), though it uses none of them. Then it calls this
> > function which uses %rbx but preserves none of the CSRs. Then it jumps
> > into an enclave which zeroes all these registers before returning.
> > Thus:
> >
> > 1. wrapper saves all CSRs
> > 2. wrapper repositions stack arguments
> > 3. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() modifies, but does not save %rbx
> > 4. selftest zeros all CSRs
> > 5. wrapper loads all CSRs
> >
> > I'd like to propose instead that the enclave be responsible for saving
> > and restoring CSRs. So instead of the above we have:
> > 1. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() saves %rbx
> > 2. enclave saves CSRs
> > 3. enclave loads CSRs
> > 4. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() loads %rbx
> >
> > I know that lots of other stuff happens during enclave transitions,
> > but at the very least we could reduce the number of instructions
> > through this critical path.
>
> What Jethro said and also that it is a good general principle to cut
> down the semantics of any vdso as minimal as possible.
>
> I.e. even if saving RBX would make somehow sense it *can* be left
> out without loss in terms of what can be done with the vDSO.

Please read the rest of the thread. Sean and I have hammered out some
sensible and effective changes.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-15 18:54    [W:0.165 / U:1.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site