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: <32c3936f-f5f0-cd26-f6f8-6d710b4eb3d6@fortanix.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:45:31 -0800
From:   Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] intel_sgx: driver documentation

On 2017-11-21 04:47, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 02:38:54PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>    Try to start LE. If it doesn't start i.e. is signed with a different
>>    root key than the one inside MSRs, then fail the initialization.
> 
> But what if the one inside the MSRs is from the fw vendor and I don't
> trust it?
> 

Boris & Peter: this key has nothing to do with "trust" or "security". As 
Sean mentioned in the other thread (PATCH v5 06/11) the kernel is fully 
capable of enforcing any security policy on its own without help of an 
enclave.

 > I.e., let the owner really own the hardware she paid money for.

Yes, let's. Processors with SGX have been commercially available for 
over 2 years (and I have owned them for the same time). Why is it that I 
still can't use a mainline kernel to get access to all the cabapilities 
of my 2-year old hardware? Let's try not to put too much policy in the 
kernel and let userspace decide.

Jethro Beekman