linux-kernel - Re: [intel-sgx-kernel-dev] [PATCH v11 13/13] 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:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:26:58 -0400
From:   Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>
To:     jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     luto@...nel.org, Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, intel-sgx-kernel-dev@...ts.01.org, hpa@...or.com,
        dvhart@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, andy@...radead.org,
        Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [intel-sgx-kernel-dev] [PATCH v11 13/13] intel_sgx: in-kernel
 launch enclave

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:28 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:28 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > As I understand it, the current policy models under discussion look like this:
> >
> > 1. SGX w/o FLC (not being merged) looks like this:
> >   Intel CPU => (Intel signed) launch enclave => enclaves
> >
> > 2. SGX w/ FLC, looks like this:
> >   Intel CPU => kernel => launch enclave => enclaves
> >
> > 3. Andy is proposing this:
> >   Intel CPU => kernel => enclaves
>
> What if MSRs are not writable after hand over to the OS? It is a legit
> configuration at least according to the SDM.

It seems to me that "set the MSRs in the BIOS" and "set the MSRs in a
UEFI module" are functionally equivalent.