linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Secure Guard eXtensions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:22:19 -0700
From:	Jethro Beekman <kernel@...ekman.nl>
To:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jethro Beekman <kernel@...ekman.nl>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	"open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE 32-BIT AND 64-BIT" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE 32-BIT AND 64-BIT" 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Secure Guard eXtensions

On 29-04-16 13:04, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> Why would you want to do that?
>>
>> ...
>
> Do you see this as a performance issue or why do you think that this
> would hurt that much?

I don't think it's a performance issue at all. I'm just giving an example of why
you'd want to do this. I'm sure people who want to use this instruction set can
come up with other uses, so I think the driver should support it. Other drivers
on different platform might support this, in which case we should be compatible
(to achieve the same enclave measurement). Other Linux drivers support it [1]. I
would ask: why would you not want to do this? It seems trivial to expand the
current flag into 16 separate flags; one for each 256-byte chunk in the page.

[1] https://github.com/jethrogb/sgx-utils/tree/master/linux-driver

> /Jarkko

Jethro