[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200514162054.GE9266@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 18:20:54 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, kai.svahn@...el.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, luto@...nel.org, kai.huang@...el.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, cedric.xing@...el.com, puiterwijk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v29 00/20] Intel SGX foundations
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 09:15:59AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> I'm not opposed to adding a kernel param to disable SGX. At one point
> there was a proposal to extend clearcpuid to allow disabling multiple
> feature bits, but it looks like that went the way of the dodo.
>
> Note, such a param would disable SGX entirely, e.g. clear the feature bit
> in /proc/cpuinfo and prevent any in-kernel SGX code from running.
It is a usual practice for big features like SGX to add a
"nosgx" cmdline param to disable it in case something goes
south. We do this for all features - see all "no*" switches in
Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists