linux-kernel - Re: [intel-sgx-kernel-dev] [PATCH v5 06/11] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Software Guard Extensions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:13:05 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "intel-sgx-kernel-dev@...ts.01.org" 
        <intel-sgx-kernel-dev@...ts.01.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [intel-sgx-kernel-dev] [PATCH v5 06/11] intel_sgx: driver for
 Intel Software Guard Extensions

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:24:55PM +0000, Christopherson, Sean J wrote:
> Exposing the token generated by the in-kernel LE doesn't affect the
> kernel's power in the slightest, e.g. the kernel doesn't need a LE
> to refuse to run an enclave and a privileged user can always load
> an out-of-tree driver if they really want to circumvent the kernel's
> policies, which is probably easier than stealing the LE's private key.

If the MSRs are read-only, kernel does need an LE in order to launch
enclaves if it only has the SIGSTRUCT.

User with abilities to load out-of-tree driver or otherwise
modify the running kernel code does not really work as an argument
in to any direction.

/Jarkko