Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v33 11/21] x86/sgx: Linux Enclave Driver | Date | Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:40:47 -0500 | From | "Haitao Huang" <> |
| |
On Wed, 02 Sep 2020 11:10:12 -0500, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 10:06:32PM -0500, Haitao Huang wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Jul 2020 22:31:10 -0500, Jarkko Sakkinen >> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 08:59:02PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:08:33AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> > > > +static int sgx_validate_secs(const struct sgx_secs *secs, >> > > > + unsigned long ssaframesize) >> > > > +{ >> > > > + if (secs->size < (2 * PAGE_SIZE) || !is_power_of_2(secs->size)) >> > > > + return -EINVAL; >> > > > + >> > > > + if (secs->base & (secs->size - 1)) >> > > > + return -EINVAL; >> > > > + >> > > > + if (secs->miscselect & sgx_misc_reserved_mask || >> > > > + secs->attributes & sgx_attributes_reserved_mask || >> > > > + secs->xfrm & sgx_xfrm_reserved_mask) >> > > > + return -EINVAL; >> > > > + >> > > > + if (secs->attributes & SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT) { >> > > > + if (secs->size > sgx_encl_size_max_64) >> > > > + return -EINVAL; >> > > > + } else if (secs->size > sgx_encl_size_max_32) >> > > > + return -EINVAL; >> > > >> > > These should be >=, not >, the SDM uses one of those fancy ≥ >> ligatures. >> > > >> > > Internal versions use more obvious pseudocode, e.g.: >> > > >> > > if ((DS:TMP_SECS.ATTRIBUTES.MODE64BIT = 1) AND >> > > (DS:TMP_SECS.SIZE AND (~((1 << CPUID.18.0:EDX[15:8]) – 1))) >> > > { >> > > #GP(0); >> > >> > Updated as: >> > >> > static int sgx_validate_secs(const struct sgx_secs *secs) >> > { >> > u64 max_size = (secs->attributes & SGX_ATTR_MODE64BIT) ? >> > sgx_encl_size_max_64 : sgx_encl_size_max_32; >> > >> > if (secs->size < (2 * PAGE_SIZE) || !is_power_of_2(secs->size)) >> > return -EINVAL; >> > >> > if (secs->base & (secs->size - 1)) >> > return -EINVAL; >> > >> > if (secs->miscselect & sgx_misc_reserved_mask || >> > secs->attributes & sgx_attributes_reserved_mask || >> > secs->xfrm & sgx_xfrm_reserved_mask) >> > return -EINVAL; >> > >> > if (secs->size >= max_size) >> > return -EINVAL; >> > >> >> This should be > not >=. Issue raised and fixed by Fábio Silva for >> ported >> patches for OOT SGX support: >> https://github.com/intel/SGXDataCenterAttestationPrimitives/pull/123 >> >> I tested and verified with Intel arch, the comparison indeed should be >> >. > > And this is a confirmed SDM bug, correct?
yes, the pseudo code for ECREATE is inaccurate and inconsistent with the CPUID spec. The latter is correct. Haitao
| |