linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] Enable FSGSBASE instructions

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]

Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 06:10:16 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     Don Porter <porter@...unc.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bp@...en8.de, luto@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, chang.seok.bae@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] Enable FSGSBASE instructions

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:07:23AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 03:41:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:19:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:40:16PM -0400, Don Porter wrote:
> > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > > 
> > > > On 5/28/20 6:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > Until recently, we were doing proof-of-concept research, not product
> > > > > > development, and there are limited hours in the day.  I also hasten to
> > > > > > say that the product of research is an article, the software artifact
> > > > > > serves as documentation of the experiment.  In contrast, the product of
> > > > > > software development is software.  It takes significant time and effort
> > > > > > to convert one to the other.  Upstreaming code is of little scientific
> > > > > > interest.  But things have changed for our project; we had no users in
> > > > > > 2015 and we are now un-cutting corners that are appropriate for research
> > > > > > but inappropriate for production.  For a research artifact with an
> > > > > > audience that knew the risks, we shipped a module because it was easier
> > > > > > to maintain and install than a kernel patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that and with a big fat warning and documentation from
> > > > > start I wouldn't have complained so vehemently.
> > > > 
> > > > This is a fair point.  We will fix this ASAP, and I will be more careful
> > > > about this going forward.
> > > 
> > > Are you going to experiment with this patch set and Graphene? Just
> > > sanity checking so that I don't unnecessarily do duplicate work.
> > > 
> > > I ignored most of the discussion since I came here only with the
> > > motivation of testing Graphene together with this patch set. I'm
> > > assuming that motivation is always good no matter which angle you come
> > > from. Thus, I might have missed the part I'm asking.
> > 
> > This series was heavily tested with Graphene-like workloads.
> 
> Is there something then readily available to test such workload with SGX
> enabled? Or should I go patching Graphene? Not sure what I should take
> from that comment :-)
> 
> For me the main point is that I need a tool to create arbitrary work
> loads and run them inside enclave, once the SGX support reaches the
> upstream. It's not just about testing this particular series.
> 
> The reason why I've been passive with this work so far is that I've been
> busy combining updating of SGX series for over two years and maintaining
> work. Now is the first time when I have time for this.
> 
> Actually I found this by searching lore.kernel.org whether anything has
> happend with this. Have had a bullet in my backlog for ages.

Just need the info if anyone else is going to do something to Graphene
or not in near future. If not, I will do it myself.

/Jarkko