On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 04:21:29PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 08:28:19PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 08:15:32AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:30:16AM +0200, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> > > > On 2020-10-06 04:57, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:50:56AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > >> +struct sgx_enclave_run {
> > > > >> + __u64 tcs;
> > > > >> + __u64 user_handler;
> > > > >> + __u64 user_data;
> > > > >> + __u32 leaf;
> > > > >
> > > > > I am still very strongly opposed to omitting exit_reason. It is not at all
> > > > > difficult to imagine scenarios where 'leaf' alone is insufficient for the
> > > > > caller or its handler to deduce why the CPU exited the enclave. E.g. see
> > > > > Jethro's request for intercepting interrupts.
> > > >
> > > > Not entirely sure what this has to do with my request, I just expect to see
> > > > leaf=ERESUME in this case, I think? E.g. as you would see in EAX when calling
> > > > ENCLU.
> > >
> > > But how would you differentiate from the case that an exception occured in
> > > the enclave? That will also transfer control with leaf=ERESUME. If there
> > > was a prior exception and userspace didn't zero out the struct, there would
> > > be "valid" data in the exception fields.
> > >
> > > An exit_reason also would allow retrofitting the exception fields into a
> > > union, i.e. the fields are valid if and only if exit_reason is exception.
> >
> > Let's purge this a bit. Please remark where my logic goes wrong. I'm
> > just explaining how I've deduced the whole thing.
> >
> > The information was encoded in v38 version of the vDSO was exactly this:
> >
> > - On normal EEXIT, it got the value 0.
> > - Otherwise, it got the value 1.
> >
> > The leaf, then embdded to struct sgx_exception but essentially the same
> > field got the value from EAX, and the value that EAX had was only
> > written on exception path.
> >
> > Thus, I deduced that if you write $EEXIT to leaf on synchrous exit you
> > get the same information content, nothing gets overwritten. I.e. you
> > can make same conclusions as you would with those two struct fields.
>
> And then a third flavor comes along, e.g. Jethro's request interrupt case,
> and exit_reason can also return '2'. How do you handle that with only the
> leaf?
I'm listening. How was that handled before? I saw only '0' and '1'. Can
you bring some context on that? I did read the emails that were swapped
when the run structure was added but I'm not sure what is the exact
differentiator. Maybe I'm missing something.
/Jarkko
