linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 18/23] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver

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: <20181126230436.GA6737@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:04:36 -0800
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Dr. Greg Wettstein" <greg@...ellic.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com,
        "Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>, shay.katz-zamir@...el.com,
        haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, mark.shanahan@...el.com,
        Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 18/23] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 01:51:45PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > ioctl(sgx, SGX_IOC_ADD_RIGHT, sgx_provisioning);
> > 
> > This requires extra syscalls, but it doesn’t have the combinatorial
> > explosion problem.
> 
> I like this design because it is extendable. I'm now also in the same
> page why we need to protect provisioning in the first place. I would
> slight restructure this as
> 
> /dev/sgx/control
> /dev/sgx/attributes/provision

I guess it would be OK to upstream only control node first as long as
provision attribute is denied in order to keep the already huge patch
set a tiny bit smaller?

/Jarkko