linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support

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]

Date:   Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:38:36 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>
cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
        "npmccallum@...hat.com" <npmccallum@...hat.com>,
        "Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
        "Katz-zamir, Shay" <shay.katz-zamir@...el.com>,
        "Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> On 2019-04-19 14:31, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I do think we need to follow LSM rules.  But my bigger point is that
> > there are policies that don’t allow JIT at all. I think we should
> > arrange the SGX API so it’s still usable when such a policy is in
> > effect.

> I don't think we need to arrange that right now. This patch set needs to
> be merged after more than 2 years of development. I'd like to avoid

We merge stuff when it is ready and not when someone declares that it needs
to be merged.

> introducing any more big changes. Let's just do what I described to make
> LSM not broken, which is a minimal change to the current approach. We
> can adjust the API later to support the use case you describe.

You are working around LSM nothing else and that's just not going to fly.

Thanks,

	tglx