[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8dc08b4c-82ee-8458-6941-248141afa2a3@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:19:46 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 45/62] mm: Add the encrypt_mprotect() system call for
MKTME
On 6/17/19 6:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I'm also wondering whether the kernel will always be able to be a
> one-stop shop for key allocation -- if the MKTME hardware gains
> interesting new uses down the road, who knows how key allocation will
> work?
I can't share all the details on LKML, of course, but I can at least say
that this model of allocating KeyID slots will continue to be used for a
number of generations.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists