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: <CAOASepOq52tmDx5ycd6hDhKg9_+beZ0Y8zoVeOBbJu=LX8_2mA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:01:34 -0400
From:   Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>
To:     jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     luto@...nel.org, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
        jethro@...tanix.com, Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
        x86@...nel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        intel-sgx-kernel-dev@...ts.01.org, hpa@...or.com,
        dvhart@...radead.org, 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 Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:44 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

+1. Let's do this and get it merged without launch enclave support
lockdown now. We can revisit this once we have hands on experience
with the technology.