> +config INTEL_SGX_CORE
> + prompt "Intel SGX core functionality"
> + def_bool n
> + depends on X86_64 && CPU_SUP_INTEL
> + help
> + Intel Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) is a set of CPU instructions
> + that allows ring 3 applications to create enclaves, private regions
> + of memory that are protected, by hardware, from unauthorized access
> + and/or modification.
This is a bit comma-crazy. Also, considering some of our recent CVE
fun, I'd probably not claim hardware protection. :)
Maybe:
Intel Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) CPU feature that allows
ring 3 applications to create enclaves: private regions
of memory that are architecturally protected from unauthorized
access and/or modification.
> + This option enables kernel recognition of SGX, high-level management
> + of the Enclave Page Cache (EPC), tracking and writing of SGX Launch
> + Enclave Hash MSRs, and allows for virtualization of SGX via KVM. By
> + iteslf, this option does not provide SGX support to userspace.
itself
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/sgx_pr.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/sgx_pr.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..c68578127620
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/sgx_pr.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause)
> +// Copyright(c) 2016-17 Intel Corporation.
> +
> +#ifndef _ASM_X86_SGX_PR_H
> +#define _ASM_X86_SGX_PR_H
> +
> +#include <linux/printk.h>
> +#include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> +
> +#undef pr_fmt
> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "sgx: " fmt
> +
> +#endif /* _ASM_X86_SGX_PR_H */
I don't think this belongs in a generic header. Generally, we do the
pr_fmt stuff in .c files, not in headers. If someone includes this
header directly or indirectly, they'll get a big surprise.
If you *must* have this in a .h file, put it in
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_sgx.h or something and #include "intel_sgx.h"
in all the .c files where you want this.
> +static __init int sgx_init(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long fc;
> +
> + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SGX))
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SGX1))
> + return false;
> +
> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL, fc);
> + if (!(fc & FEATURE_CONTROL_LOCKED)) {
> + pr_info("IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL MSR is not locked\n");
> + return false;
> + }
This is a rather crummy error message. Doesn't this keep sgx from
initializing? Would something like this be more informative?
pr_info("failed init: IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL MSR not locked\n");
> + if (!(fc & FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_ENABLE)) {
> + pr_info("disabled by the firmware\n");
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + if (!(fc & FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LE_WR))
> + pr_info("IA32_SGXLEPUBKEYHASHn MSRs are not writable\n");
How about something that might help an end user? Perhaps:
pr_warn("launch configuration not available\n");
> + sgx_enabled = true;
> + sgx_lc_enabled = !!(fc & FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LE_WR);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +arch_initcall(sgx_init);
>
