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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711180023440.2186@nanos>
Date:   Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:34:33 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        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 Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Darren Hart wrote:

@intel: I removed intel-sgx-kernel-dev@...ts.01.org from CC because I can
do without the silly moderation spam of that list. Please disable that
nonsense.

> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:45:28PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Is SGX considered architectural or not? A quick search of the SDM
> includes it in Volume 3:
> 
> Volume 3: Includes the full system programming guide, parts 1, 2, 3, and
> 4.  Describes the operating-system support environment of Intel® 64 and
> IA-32 architectures, including: memory management, protection, task
> management, interrupt and exception handling, multi-processor support,
> thermal and power management features, debugging, performance
> monitoring, system management mode, virtual machine extensions (VMX)
> instructions, Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel® VT), and Intel®
> Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX).
> 
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-sdm
> 
> Depending on the answer, this impacts whether this belongs in
> drivers/platform/x86 or arch/x86/platform per our recent agreement with
> Thomas.
> 
> Thomas, Mingo, HPA, do you wish to see this organized/located
> differently than it is here in v5?

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