Re: [RFC PATCH 03/23] x86/sgx: Introduce virtual EPC for use by KVM guests

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:39:44 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/15/21 6:07 AM, Kai Huang wrote:
> >>From virtual EPC's perspective, if we don't force this in kernel, then
> > *theoretically*, userspace can use fork() to make multiple VMs map to the
> > same physical EPC, which will potentially cause enclaves in all VMs to behave
> > abnormally. So to me, from this perspective, it's better to enforce in kernel
> > so that only first VM can use this virtual EPC instance, because EPC by
> > architectural design cannot be shared.
> > 
> > But as Sean said, KVM doesn't support VM across multiple mm structs. And if I
> > read code correctly, KVM doesn't support userspace to use fork() to create new
> > VM. For instance, when creating VM, KVM grabs current->mm and keeps it in
> > 'struct kvm' for bookkeeping, and kvm_vcpu_ioctl() and kvm_device_ioctl() will
> > refuse to work if kvm->mm doesn't equal to current->mm. So in practice, I
> > believe w/o enforcing this in kernel, we should also have no problem here.
> > 
> > Sean, please correct me if I am wrong.
> > 
> > Dave, if above stands, do you think it is reasonable to keep current->mm in
> > epc->mm and enforce in sgx_virt_epc_mmap()?
> 
> Everything you wrote above tells me the kernel should not be enforcing
> the behavior.  You basically said that it's only a theoretical problem,
> and old if someone goes and does something with KVM that's nobody can do
> today.
> 
> You've 100% convinced me that having the kernel enforce this is
> *un*reasonable.

Sean, I'll remove epc->mm, unless I see your further objection.

Thanks to you both.



[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux