linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] An alternative __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() to allow enclave/host parameter passing using untrusted stack

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: <20190711155037.GB15067@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 08:50:37 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        serge.ayoun@...el.com, shay.katz-zamir@...el.com,
        haitao.huang@...el.com, kai.svahn@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] An alternative __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() to
 allow enclave/host parameter passing using untrusted stack

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:38:09PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 04:37:41PM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > We are not judging which vessel is better (or the best) among all possible
> > vessels. We are trying to enable more vessels. Every vessel has its pros and
> > cons so there's *no* single best vessel.
> 
> I think reasonable metric is actually the coverage of the Intel SDK
> based enclaves. How widely are they in the wild? If the user base is
> large, it should be reasonable to support this just based on that.

Large enough that Andy agreed to take the vDSO code with the optional
callback, despite his personal opinion being that mucking with uR{B,S}P
from within the enclave is poor form.