Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/sgx: Track phase and type of SGX EPC pages

[Sean Christopherson]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> 
> On 7/14/2021 1:59 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > Could this tracking be done at the enclave page (struct sgx_encl_page)
> > > instead?
> > 
> > In principle yes. Though Sean has some issues with me tracking types
> > at all.

I've no objection to tracking the type for SGX2, my argument in the context of
#MC support is that there should be no need to track the type.  Either the #MC
is recoverable or it isn't, and the enclave is toast regardless of what type of
page hit the #MC.

There might be a need to identify track vEPC pages, e.g. to avoid the retpoline
associated with a virtual function table, but IMO that would be better done as a
new flag instead of overloading the page type.  E.g. a page can be both a
vEPC page and an SECS/REG/VA page depending on its use in the guest.

> For the SGX2 work knowing the page types are useful. Some instructions only
> work on certain page types and knowing beforehand whether an instruction
> could work helps to avoid dealing with the errors when it does not work.

Yes, but the SGX2 use case is specific to "native" enclaves, i.e. it can and
should be limited to sgx_encl_page, as opposed to being shoved into sgx_epc_page.

> > > The enclave page's EPC page information is not available when
> > > the page is in swap and it would be useful to know the page type without
> > > loading the page from swap. The information would continue to be
> > > accessible from struct epc_page via the owner pointer that may make some
> > > of the changes easier since it would not be needed to pass the page type
> > > around so much and thus possibly address the SECS page issue that Sean
> > > pointed out in
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YO3FuBupQTKYaKBf@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > I think I noticed that the "owner" pointer in sgx_encl_page doesn't point
> > back to the epc_page for all types of SGX pages. So some additional
> > changes would be needed. I'm not at all sure why this is different (or
> > what use the non-REG pages use "owner" for.
> 
> This may be VA pages? struct sgx_va_page also contains a pointer to an EPC
> page. I did not consider that for this case. Perhaps these could be
> identified uniquely.

The "owner" is currently only used for reclaim.  IIRC, the proposed EPC cgroup
also used "owner" to enable forced "reclaim", i.e. reclaiming EPC by nuking the
owning entity, e.g. tearing down a virtual EPC section.  And I believe the cgroup
also used the aforementioned vEPC flag to invoke the correct EPC OOM reaper.