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: <20171121111009.d6h2pqhmlqkf7yby@pd.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:10:09 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     intel-sgx-kernel-dev@...ts.01.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] intel_sgx: driver documentation

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 01:41:45AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> In potential deployments of SGX, the owner could do this either in the
> firmware level or OS level depending whether the MSRs are configured as
> writable in the feature control.
> 
> One option would be to have a config flag to decide whether to require
> MSRs to be writable or not.

"potential", "would", "could" - all carefully formulated. :-)

Realistically, though, I'm afraid OEMs would jump on the opportunity to
control yet another arch aspect like wasps on honey. So having a way to
override what the firmware decided for me - without even asking me -
would be RealGood(tm).

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.