Change in coreboot[master]: [RFC|WIP] soc/intel/skylake: replace native SGX initialization by FSP

[Pratikkumar V Prajapati (Code Review)]

Pratikkumar V Prajapati has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/44244 )

Change subject: [RFC|WIP] soc/intel/skylake: replace native SGX initialization by FSP
......................................................................

Patch Set 2:
> Patch Set 2:
> > Patch Set 2:
> > > Patch Set 2:
> > > > Patch Set 2:
> > > > > Patch Set 2:
> > > > > > Patch Set 2:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if i remember correctly, this programming sequence requirement was from cannon-lake onwards. skylake/kabylake can still use native (coreboot) sgx init flow.
> > > > >
> > > > > On SKL LT_MEMORY_LOCK has to be set, too, and FSP does this with SkipMpInit=0. AFAICT native SGX init can't be used on SKL for the same reasons we can't use it on CNL.
> > > > > > From cannon-lake onwards, sgx init needs fsp for the reasons mentioned in https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36356/2/src/soc/intel/cannonlake/fi.... i guess mp-ppi may also be used for cannon-lake onwards. Please follow Nate's recommendation for that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS: I see my gmail was added earlier and that notification was in spam. Thanks for adding my @intel email. I am off next week, I’ll respond the following week if there are follow-up questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > See CB:36356. Native SGX init is not used in CNL, so there is nothing more to do.
> > > >
> > > > "FSP-S must be able to write and lock some registers that would be immutable after setting LT_LOCK_MEMORY."* I dont think i got into this issue when i wrote native sgx init flow. At that time i was able to activate the SGX and lock it correctly by using native code only. i created enclaves also from the application and checked it was encrypted and working as expected.
> > > >
> > > > @Nate: is this* valid for SKL/KBL as well?
> >
> > Yes, this is valid and exactly the point, why native SGX init can't be used. LT_MEMORY_LOCK must be set, *before* native SGX init (well, more specifically before microcode reload). That conflicts with the requirement of FSP-S to be able to write registers.
> > > At that time i was able to activate the SGX and lock it correctly by using native code only. i created enclaves also from the application and checked it was encrypted and working as expected
> >
> > Yes, SGX works. No, not in a secure way with native SGX init without LT_MEMORY_LOCK.
>
> in my original code i.e. native sgx init, i was doing exactly that.
> lock LT mem, reload ucode and so on. (my original code below - commit 418535e222ccd9f688facbb7d9663ca4cacc2739) which was working.
>
> void sgx_configure(void)
> {
>         const void *microcode_patch = intel_mp_current_microcode();
>     if (!soc_sgx_enabled() || !is_sgx_supported() || !is_prmrr_set()) {
>             printk(BIOS_ERR, "SGX: pre-conditions not met\n");
>             return;
>     }
>
>     /* Enable the SGX feature */
>     enable_sgx();
>
>     /* Update the owner epoch value */
>     if (owner_epoch_update() < 0)
>             return;
>
>     /* Ensure to lock memory before reload microcode patch */
>     cpu_lock_sgx_memory();
>
>     /* Reload the microcode patch */
>     intel_microcode_load_unlocked(microcode_patch);
>
>     /* Lock the SGX feature */
>     lock_sgx();
>
>     /* Activate the SGX feature, if PRMRR config was aprroved by MCHECK */
>     if (is_prmrr_approved())
>             activate_sgx();
>
> }

I'll let Nate comment on "FSP-S must be able to write and lock some registers that would be immutable after setting LT_LOCK_MEMORY."*