On Fri, 03 Jul 2020 22:31:10 -0500, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 >.
Thanks
Haitao
