linux-kernel - Re: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal

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

Message-ID: <20190109144524.GA8367@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:45:25 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Dr . Greg Wettstein" <greg@...ellic.com>
Subject: Re: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 08:26:35AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> What I was trying to explain is that the uapi isn't for KVM, it's for
> the userspace hypervisor, e.g. Qemu.  Qemu will inform KVM of the
> resulting guest memory region so that KVM can configure its guest page
> tables accordingly, but that is done through KVM's existing memory uapi.

OK, I now I got it, apologies it took such a long time :-)

Now I see the analogy e.g. qemu creates independently VMAs and then
fuels those regions to KVM. Similarly qemu would create regions for
KVM using "/dev/sgx/mem".

For me this is perfectly fine now I understand the reasoning and neither
does make my job more difficult to implement the file based enclave
change.

Thanks for the patience with this...

/Jarkko