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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2017 11:41:48 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        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>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] intel_sgx: driver documentation

+ Cc: KVM, Paolo and Radim

On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 09:03 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 01:08 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > 
> > 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
> To enable KVM and a cgroup for EPC accounting, at a minimum arch/x86 needs to
> manage the EPC pages (alloc/free/lrus/reclaim/etc...) and LE hash MSRs.  IMO,
> ideally everything else would be left in the device driver, e.g. anything
> involving ENCLS.  Keeping the majority of the driver out of arch/x86 minimizes
> the footprint in arch/x86 and thereby the size of KVM's dependency required to
> virtualize SGX, and allows the various SGX pieces, e.g. arch, driver and KVM,
> to evolve more independently.
> 
> Preferably the arch/x86 code would not be a loadable module, e.g. to simplify
> KVM support.
> 
> I have a branch based on Jarkko's patches (I believe it's up-to-date with v5)
> that implements what I described.  I'd be happy to send RFC patches if that
> would help.
> 
> 
> Branches for those interested:
> 
> https://github.com/sean-jc/linux.git sgx/arch   - move core EPC to arch/x86
> https://github.com/sean-jc/linux.git sgx/kvm    - KVM support for SGX
> https://github.com/sean-jc/linux.git sgx/lc     - KVM support for Launch
> Control
> https://github.com/sean-jc/linux.git sgx/cgroup - EPC cgroup
> 
> 
> branch relationships:
> 
>     Jarkko's patches
>             |
>             |
>          sgx/arch
>         /        \
>      sgx/kvm    sgx/cgroup
>       /
>    sgx/lc