linux-kernel - Re: [intel-sgx-kernel-dev] [PATCH v11 13/13] 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: <689641dc26a91f7b4b6bfdb763fec90bf7c3e984.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:43:46 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     npmccallum@...hat.com,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>, nhorman@...hat.com,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        intel-sgx-kernel-dev@...ts.01.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, andy@...radead.org,
        Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [intel-sgx-kernel-dev] [PATCH v11 13/13] intel_sgx: in-kernel
 launch enclave

On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 08:45 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I'm personally rather strongly in favor of the vastly simpler model in
> which we first merge SGX without LE support at all.  Instead we use
> the approach where we just twiddle the MSRs to launch normal enclaves
> without an init token at all, which is probably considerably faster
> and will remove several thousand lines of code.  If and when a bona
> fide use case for LE support shows up, we can work out the details and
> merge it.

Andy, I was going to propose exactly the same :-)

We can upstream SGX that supports only unlocked MSRs and that does
not preventing to upstream support for locked MSRs later. Even if
we had a consensus for locked MSRs, making two milestones for the
mainline would make perfect sense.

I came into this conclusion last night because all the other review
comments not concerning the launch control are easily sorted out.

/Jarkko