On Wed, 02 Sep 2020 11:10:12 -0500, Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> 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@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
>.
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
