Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200303233609.713348-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20200303233609.713348-22-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <CAOASepPi4byhQ21hngsSx8tosCC-xa=y6r4j=pWo2MZGeyhi4Q@mail.gmail.com> <20200315012523.GC208715@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200315012523.GC208715@linux.intel.com>
From:   Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:53:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOASepP9GeTEqs1DSfPiSm9ER0whj9qwSc46ZiNj_K4dMekOfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v28 21/22] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX
 enclave call
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        dave.hansen@intel.com,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
        "Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@intel.com>,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        "Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@intel.com>, bp@alien8.de,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, luto@kernel.org,
        kai.huang@intel.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        cedric.xing@intel.com, Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
        Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@redhat.com>,
        Harald Hoyer <harald@redhat.com>,
        Lily Sturmann <lsturman@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 9:25 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 01:30:07PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > Currently, the selftest has a wrapper around
> > __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() which preserves all x86-64 ABI callee-saved
> > registers (CSRs), though it uses none of them. Then it calls this
> > function which uses %rbx but preserves none of the CSRs. Then it jumps
> > into an enclave which zeroes all these registers before returning.
> > Thus:
> >
> >   1. wrapper saves all CSRs
> >   2. wrapper repositions stack arguments
> >   3. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() modifies, but does not save %rbx
> >   4. selftest zeros all CSRs
> >   5. wrapper loads all CSRs
> >
> > I'd like to propose instead that the enclave be responsible for saving
> > and restoring CSRs. So instead of the above we have:
> >   1. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() saves %rbx
> >   2. enclave saves CSRs
> >   3. enclave loads CSRs
> >   4. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() loads %rbx
> >
> > I know that lots of other stuff happens during enclave transitions,
> > but at the very least we could reduce the number of instructions
> > through this critical path.
>
> What Jethro said and also that it is a good general principle to cut
> down the semantics of any vdso as minimal as possible.
>
> I.e. even if saving RBX would make somehow sense it *can* be left
> out without loss in terms of what can be done with the vDSO.

Please read the rest of the thread. Sean and I have hammered out some
sensible and effective changes.