Re: [PATCH v32 00/21] Intel SGX foundations

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 05:06:55PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:09:58PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 01:59:03PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 10:51:57AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > v29:
> > > > * The selftest has been moved to selftests/sgx. Because SGX is an execution
> > > >   environment of its own, it really isn't a great fit with more "standard"
> > > >   x86 tests.
> > > > 
> > > >   The RSA key is now generated on fly and the whole signing process has
> > > >   been made as part of the enclave loader instead of signing the enclave
> > > >   during the compilation time.
> > > > 
> > > >   Finally, the enclave loader loads now the test enclave directly from its
> > > >   ELF file, which means that ELF file does not need to be coverted as raw
> > > >   binary during the build process.
> > > 
> > > Something in the above rework broke the selftest.  I'm getting intermittent
> > > EINIT failures with SGX_INVALID_SIGNATURE.  I'm guessing it's related to
> > > the dynamic RSA key generation, e.g. only ~15% of runs fail.  Verified that
> > > v29 selftest fails and v28 passes.  My internal tests also pass, i.e. it's
> > > all but guaranteed to be a selftest issue, not a kernel issue.
> > > 
> > > Jarkko, I don't have bandwidth to dig into this right now, hopefully this
> > > reproduces in your environment.  Let me know if that's not the case.
> > 
> > I haven't experienced but I'll try to stress test it.
> > 
> > Just to know how complex test should reproduce your issue, can you
> > reproduce the issue by running the selftest sequentially in a loop or
> > do I need to do something more complex than that?
> 
> I didn't even get that complex, just running the selftest manually will
> eventually fail for me, e.g. the first failure I saw was a one-off run of
> the selftest.

OK, I'll see how it behaves in my Geminilake NUC.

/Jarkko