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  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:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:12:07 +0200
From:   Jethro Beekman <>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v29 00/20] Intel SGX foundations

On 2020-04-30 10:23, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 09:19:48AM +0200, Jethro Beekman wrote:
>> On 2020-04-30 05:46, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:27:48PM +0200, Jethro Beekman wrote:
>>>> On 2020-04-21 23:52, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>> Intel(R) SGX is a set of CPU instructions that can be used by applications
>>>>> to set aside private regions of code and data. The code outside the enclave
>>>>> is disallowed to access the memory inside the enclave by the CPU access
>>>>> control.
>>>>> There is a new hardware unit in the processor called Memory Encryption
>>>>> Engine (MEE) starting from the Skylake microacrhitecture. BIOS can define
>>>>> one or many MEE regions that can hold enclave data by configuring them with
>>>>> PRMRR registers.
>>>>> The MEE automatically encrypts the data leaving the processor package to
>>>>> the MEE regions. The data is encrypted using a random key whose life-time
>>>>> is exactly one power cycle.
>>>>> The current implementation requires that the firmware sets
>>>>> IA32_SGXLEPUBKEYHASH* MSRs as writable so that ultimately the kernel can
>>>>> decide what enclaves it wants run. The implementation does not create
>>>>> any bottlenecks to support read-only MSRs later on.
>>>>> You can tell if your CPU supports SGX by looking into /proc/cpuinfo:
>>>>> 	cat /proc/cpuinfo  | grep sgx
>>>> Let's merge this.
>>> So can I tag reviewed-by's?
>> No, but you already have my tested-by's.
>> If it helps I can try to review some patches, but 1) I know nothing
>> about kernel coding guidelines and best practices and 2) I know little
>> about most kernel internals, so I won't be able to review every patch.
> Ackd-by *acknowledges* that the patches work for you. I think that would
> be then the correct choice for the driver patch and patches before that.
> Lets go with that if that is cool for you of course.
> Did you run the selftest only or possibly also some internal Fortanix
> tests?

v29 patches 2 through 18:

Acked-by: Jethro Beekman <>

I only ran production SGX software. I didn't run the self test.

Jethro Beekman | Fortanix

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4054 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists