Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: ZNG5azsZl3wraXneFyZK0nUSgoNjDlrZfdWSec4iCUzWBKHdpFe9Mz+C0PqB+I6ElFslMJkJaX
 TOOYpm1PLUjQ==
IronPort-SDR: Ld8hUSmXzhhmCv51vSWvkEQIse22EktXhPt6YDefIVr2f33rzb4FsKm4nZeXZkdwOy+qoPioiy
 +Br3LSVF+cmQ==
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 08:15:32 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Cedric Xing <cedric.xing@intel.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, asapek@google.com, bp@alien8.de,
        chenalexchen@google.com, conradparker@google.com,
        cyhanish@google.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, haitao.huang@intel.com,
        kai.huang@intel.com, kai.svahn@intel.com, kmoy@google.com,
        ludloff@google.com, luto@kernel.org, nhorman@redhat.com,
        npmccallum@redhat.com, puiterwijk@redhat.com, rientjes@google.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, yaozhangx@google.com, mikko.ylinen@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v39 21/24] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX
 enclave call
Message-ID: <20201006151532.GA17610@linux.intel.com>
References: <20201003045059.665934-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20201003045059.665934-22-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20201006025703.GG15803@linux.intel.com>
 <453c2d9b-0fd0-0d63-2bb9-096f255a6ff4@fortanix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <453c2d9b-0fd0-0d63-2bb9-096f255a6ff4@fortanix.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

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.