On 7/11/25 09:50, Elena Reshetova wrote:
> == Background ==
>
> ENCLS[EUPDATESVN] is a new SGX instruction [1] which allows enclave
> attestation to include information about updated microcode SVN without a
> reboot. Before an EUPDATESVN operation can be successful, all SGX memory
> (aka. EPC) must be marked as “unused” in the SGX hardware metadata
> (aka.EPCM). This requirement ensures that no compromised enclave can
> survive the EUPDATESVN procedure and provides an opportunity to generate
> new cryptographic assets.
>
> == Patch Contents ==
>
> Attempt to execute ENCLS[EUPDATESVN] every time the first file descriptor
> is obtained via sgx_(vepc_)open(). In the most common case the microcode
> SVN is already up-to-date, and the operation succeeds without updating SVN.
> If it fails with any other error code than SGX_INSUFFICIENT_ENTROPY, this
> is considered unexpected and the *open() returns an error. This should not
> happen in practice. On contrary, SGX_INSUFFICIENT_ENTROPY might happen due
> to a pressure on the system's DRNG (RDSEED) and therefore the *open() can
> be safely retried to allow normal enclave operation.
The effort to add paragraphs would be appreciated.
> int sgx_inc_usage_count(void)
> {
> - atomic64_inc(&sgx_usage_count);
> - return 0;
> + int ret;
...
For what it does sgx_inc_usage_count() is seriously hard to parse and
complicated. Three logical atomic ops *and* a spinlock? Wouldn't this
suffice?
Just make 'sgx_usage_count' a normal integer and always guard it with a
the existing lock:
int sgx_inc_usage_count(void)
{
int ret;
guard(mutex)(&sgx_svn_lock);
if (sgx_usage_count++ == 0)
return sgx_update_svn();
return 0;
}
Yeah, it makes the fast path a spinlock instead of an atomic_inc, but
it's still the same number of atomic ops in the end.
Isn't that a billion times more readable? It barely even needs commenting.
What am I missing?
