On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 08:15:38AM +0000, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> On 2018-12-08 00:14, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >On 12/7/18 10:15 AM, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> >>This is not sufficient to support the Fortanix SGX ABI calling
> >>convention, which was designed to be mostly compatible with the SysV
> >>64-bit calling convention. The following registers need to be passed in
> >>to an enclave from userspace: RDI, RSI, RDX, R8, R9, R10. The following
> >>registers need to be passed out from an enclave to userspace: RDI, RSI,
> >>RDX, R8, R9.
> >
> >Are you asking nicely to change the new Linux ABI to be consistent with
> >your existing ABI? Or, are you saying that the new ABI *must* be
> >compatible with this previous out-of-tree implementation?
>
> What's being discussed here is one of the alternatives for SGX fault
> handling, meant to improve the current status quo of having to use a signal
> handler.
>
> I'm merely providing a data point that the currently proposed solution is
> not sufficient to support current use of the (ring 3) ENCLU instruction. You
> might find this useful in determining whether proposed kernel features will
> actually be used by users, and in further developing this solution or other
> solutions to the fault handling issue.
>
> If going with the vDSO solution, I think something with semantics closer to
> the actual instruction would be preferred, like the following:
>
> notrace __attribute__((naked)) long __vdso_sgx_enclu_with_aep()
> {
> asm volatile(
> " lea 2f(%%rip), %%rcx\n"
> "1: enclu\n"
> "2: ret\n"
> ".pushsection .fixup, \"ax\" \n"
> "3: jmp 2b\n"
> ".popsection\n"
> _ASM_VDSO_EXTABLE_HANDLE(1b, 3b)
> :::
> );
> }
Part of me likes this idea, but it's a documentation nightmare since
it's a completely customer register ABI. And the caller's exception
handling gets a bit weird since RAX implicitly defines whether or not
an exception occurred. I also think there's value in making the vDSO
function callable from standard C.
