[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190422164827.GC1236@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 09:48:27 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
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>,
"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 Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:24:11AM -0500, Dr. Greg wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 08:01:19AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
> Good morning to everyone, I hope the week is starting well.
>
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:02:47AM -0500, Dr. Greg wrote:
> > > We understand and support the need for the LSM to trap these
> > > events, but what does LSM provenance mean if the platform is
> > > compromised? That is, technically, the target application for SGX
> > > technology.
>
> > No, it's not. Protecting the kernel/platform from a malicious
> > entity is outside the scope of SGX.
>
> You must have misinterpreted my statement, providing security
> guarantees in the face of a compromised platform is exactly what SGX
> was designed to do and is how Intel is marketing the technology.
Right, and loading a malicious enclave doesn't change those guarantees
(for other enclaves). Ergo, restricting which enclaves can execute is
orthogonal to the security provided by SGX.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists