> -----Original Message-----
> From: Huang, Kai <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 1:50 PM
> To: Reshetova, Elena <[email protected]>; Hansen, Dave
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Scarlata, Vincent R
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
> Annapurve, Vishal <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> Mallick, Asit K <[email protected]>; Aktas, Erdem
> <[email protected]>; Cai, Chong <[email protected]>; Bondarevska,
> Nataliia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Raynor, Scott
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 5/5] x86/sgx: Enable automatic SVN updates for SGX
> enclaves
> 
> 
> >
> > +/* Mutex to ensure no concurrent EPC accesses during EUPDATESVN */
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sgx_svn_lock);
> > +
> >  int sgx_inc_usage_count(void)
> >  {
> > +   guard(mutex)(&sgx_svn_lock);
> > +
> > +   if (sgx_usage_count++ == 0)
> > +           return sgx_update_svn();
> > +
> 
> Hmm.. sorry for not noticing this before.. But I think we might have a
> problem here since the sgx_usage_count is increased regardless of the
> result of sgx_update_svn().
> 
> If sgx_update_svn() fails, it makes sgx_inc_usage_count() return error
> too, so sgx_{vepc_}open() will fail and return immediately w/o calling
> sgx_dec_usage_count().
> 
> But the sgx_usage_count has been increased.
> 
> AFAICT when sgx_{vepc_}_open() fails, the sgx_{vepc_}release() is not
> called, so sgx_dec_usage_count() is never called and sgx_usage_count
> remains increased.
> 
> So when sgx_{vepc_}open() calls sgx_inc_usage_count() again, it will skip
> calling sgx_update_svn(), and allow enclave/vEPC to be created
> successfully, which just defeats the purpose.
> 
> So if I am not missing anything, I think we should only increase the count
> when sgx_update_svn() returns success?

Yes, you are right, thanks for catching this! In past the atomic version of
this patch did exactly, but after I went into this simplified version of 
counting,
this angle got broken.
Will fix. 

Best Regards,
Elena.

Reply via email to