> On Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/18 11:02 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:41 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/6/18 10:20 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> I almost feel like the right solution is to call into SGX on its own
>>>> private stack or maybe even its own private address space.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I had the same gut feeling. Couldn't the debugger even treat the
>>> enclave like its own "thread" with its own stack and its own set of
>>> registers and context? That seems like a much more workable model than
>>> trying to weave it together with the EENTER context.
>>
>> So maybe the API should be, roughly
>>
>> sgx_exit_reason_t sgx_enter_enclave(pointer_to_enclave, struct
>> host_state *state);
>> sgx_exit_reason_t sgx_resume_enclave(same args);
>>
>> where host_state is something like:
>>
>> struct host_state {
>> unsigned long bp, sp, ax, bx, cx, dx, si, di;
>> };
>>
>> and the values in host_state explicitly have nothing to do with the
>> actual host registers. So, if you want to use the outcall mechanism,
>> you'd allocate some memory, point sp to that memory, call
>> sgx_enter_enclave(), and then read that memory to do the outcall.
>
> Ah, so instead of the enclave rudely "hijacking" the EENTER context, we
> have it nicely return and nicely _hint_ to the calling context what it
> would like to do. Then, the EENTER context can make a controlled
> transition over to the requested context.
Exactly. And existing enclaves keep working — their rudeness is just magically translated into a hint!
>
>> Actually implementing this would be distinctly nontrivial, and would
>> almost certainly need some degree of kernel help to avoid an explosion
>> when a signal gets delivered while we have host_state.sp loaded into
>> the actual SP register. Maybe rseq could help with this?
>
> As long as the memory pointed to by host_state.sp is valid and can hold
> the signal frame (grows down without clobbering anything), what goes
> boom? The signal handling would push a signal frame and call the
> handler. It would have a shallow-looking stack, but the handler could
> just do its normal business and return from the signal where the frame
> would get popped and continue with %rsp=host_state.sp, blissfully
> unaware of the signal ever having happened.
True, but what if we have a nasty enclave that writes to memory just below SP *before* decrementing SP?
I suspect that rseq really can be used for this with only minimal-ish modifications. Or we could stick this in the vDSO with some appropriate fixups in the kernel.
