linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 04/11] x86: define IA32_FEATUE_CONTROL.SGX

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:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:38:15 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        Piotr Luc <piotr.luc@...el.com>,
        Grzegorz Andrejczuk <grzegorz.andrejczuk@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/11] x86: define IA32_FEATUE_CONTROL.SGX_LC

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:21:41AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:00:03PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > What about SGX_LC_ENABLE?  The title in the MSR section of the SDM is
> > "SGX Launch Control Enable", and it's more consistent with the other
> > bits defined in feature control.  I'd also prefer that name for the
> > actual #define too, SGX_LAUNCH_CONTROL_ENABLE is overly verbose IMO.
> 
> This is a bit ugly name but it is also very clear:
> 
>   FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LEPUBKEYHASH_WRITE_ENABLE
> 
> Just pushed update to the le branch. SGX_LC_ENABLE is a nice short name
> but it does not reflect the semantics.
> 
> Maybe we could combine these and name it as
> 
>   FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LC_WRITE_ENABLE
> 
> It is not as ugly and is very clear what it does.

I ended up with FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LC_WR. I think that is fairly
reasonable name for bit 17.

/Jarkko