On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:08:19AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > Remove from sgx_validate_secs(): > > if (secs->miscselect & sgx_misc_reserved_mask || > secs->attributes & sgx_attributes_reserved_mask || > secs->xfrm & sgx_xfrm_reserved_mask) > return -EINVAL; > > SECS can surpass the platform limits because it's the SIGSTRUCT that > defines the limits that are used at run-time. > > What SECS does is that it defines the overall limits that must apply for > any platform, i.e. SECS limits and platform limits are orthogonal. They > are not dependent. > > Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jethro Beekman <jethro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Suggested-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I think I got this now. I think it would be less confusing if the variables were renamed as: - sgx_cpu_misc - sgx_cpu_attributes - sgx_cpu_xfrm These names nail their role better and do not imply any possible dependency with SIGSTRUCT masks. 'cpu' is better than 'platform' because it is more exact. Does anyone mind if I do these renames? /Jarkko > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c | 5 ----- > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c > index 6b3cc8483008..008752cb54f0 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c > @@ -86,11 +86,6 @@ static int sgx_validate_secs(const struct sgx_secs *secs) > 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; > > -- > 2.25.1 >
