On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:05:01AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:04:46AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:08:07AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Make __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() callable from C by preserving %rbx > > > and taking @leaf in %rcx instead of %rax. Being able to invoke the vDSO > > > from C reduces the overhead of runtimes that are tightly coupled with > > > their enclaves, e.g. that can rely on the enclave to save and restore > > > non-volatile registers, as the runtime doesn't need an assembly wrapper > > > to preserve non-volatile registers and/or shuffle stack arguments. > > > > > > Note, both %rcx and %rbx are consumed by EENTER/ERESUME, i.e. consuming > > > them doesn't violate the primary tenet of __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() > > > that "thou shalt not restrict how information is exchanged between an > > > enclave and its host process". > > > > > > Suggested-by: Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Cedric Xing <cedric.xing@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Jethro Beekman <jethro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: linux-sgx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S | 30 ++++++++++++++---------- > > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S > > > index 34cee2b0ef09..c56064fb36bc 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S > > > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vsgx_enter_enclave.S > > > @@ -17,22 +17,22 @@ > > > > > > /** > > > * __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() - Enter an SGX enclave > > > + * @rdi: Pass-through value for RDI > > > + * @rsi: Pass-through value for RSI > > > + * @rdx: Pass-through value for RDX > > > * @leaf: ENCLU leaf, must be EENTER or ERESUME > > > + * @r8: Pass-through value for R8 > > > + * @r9: Pass-through value for R9 > > > * @tcs: TCS, must be non-NULL > > > * @e: Optional struct sgx_enclave_exception instance > > > * @handler: Optional enclave exit handler > > > * > > > - * **Important!** __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() is **NOT** compliant with the > > > - * x86-64 ABI, i.e. cannot be called from standard C code. > > > - * > > > - * Input ABI: > > > - * @leaf %eax > > > - * @tcs 8(%rsp) > > > - * @e 0x10(%rsp) > > > - * @handler 0x18(%rsp) > > > - * > > > - * Output ABI: > > > - * @ret %eax > > > + * **Important!** __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() does not ensure full compliance > > > > I'd simply put **NOTE** here instead of **Important!** as it is more > > common. > > > > > + * with the x86-64 ABI, e.g. doesn't explicitly clear EFLAGS.DF after EEXIT. > > > + * Except for non-volatile general purpose registers, preserving/setting state > > > + * in accordance with the x86-64 ABI is the responsibility of the enclave and > > > + * its runtime, i.e. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() cannot be called from C code > > > + * without careful consideration by both the enclave and its runtime. > > > > Instead "e.g. doesn't explcitly clear EFLAGS.DF after EEXIT" (which is > > somewhat confusing statement) paragraph should be replaced with a simple > > enumerated list of differences. > > I don't think the list is that simple, e.g. there is a lot of state that > is defined by the ABI that isn't touched, IMO talking about that state will > add confusion. > > I also don't understand what's confusing about stating EFLAGS.DF isn't > cleared. Too much time was has passed since the last version, and too many patches have been reviewed since. Please just refresh the way you feel best and I will make conclusions based on that. It's faster that way in the end. /Jarkko
