linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] intel

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:   Tue, 21 Nov 2017 01:08:43 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] intel_sgx: driver documentation

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> This is architecural. From the cursory read of that series it seems there
> are two parts to it:
> 
>   1) The actual core handling, which should be in arch/x86 because that
>      hardly qualifies as a 'platform' device driver.
> 
>   2) The user space interface, which can be separated out perhaps.
> 
> I don't know how intertwingled they are, but that's hard to tell from the
> actual patches w/o doing a deep inspection. Jarkko should be able to answer
> that.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx

Darren, tglx,

You can leave user space device as separate module as sgx_ioctl.c merely
calls stuff that I have inside sgx_encl.c. VMA creation is bound to file
operations.

My questions would be:

1. What is your recommendation on the deployment under arch/x86?
2. Which parts should be compilable as a LKM? Only the user interface
   or both parts?

/Jarkko