linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v33 11/21] x86/sgx: Linux Enclave Driver

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: <20200626141936.GC390691@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:19:36 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Chunyang Hui <sanqian.hcy@...fin.com>,
        Jordan Hand <jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>,
        Seth Moore <sethmo@...gle.com>,
        Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        asapek@...gle.com, cedric.xing@...el.com, chenalexchen@...gle.com,
        conradparker@...gle.com, cyhanish@...gle.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, kai.huang@...el.com, kai.svahn@...el.com,
        kmoy@...gle.com, ludloff@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org,
        nhorman@...hat.com, puiterwijk@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, yaozhangx@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v33 11/21] x86/sgx: Linux Enclave Driver

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:34:48AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 07:23:19PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Also, you had all patches until now split nice and logically doing one
> > thing only.
> > 
> > But this one is huge. Why?
> > 
> > Why can't you split out the facilities which the driver uses: encl.[ch]
> > into a patch, then ioctl.c into a separate one and then the driver into
> > a third one? Or do they all belong together inseparably?
> > 
> > I guess I'll find out eventually but it would've been nice if they were
> > split out...
> 
> Hmm, I think the most reasonable way to break up this beast would be to
> incrementally introduce functionality.  E.g. four or so patches, one for
> each ioctl() of ENCLAVE_CREATE, ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGES, ENCLAVE_INIT and
> ENCLAVE_SET_ATTRIBUTE, in that order.
> 
> Splitting up by file probably wouldn't work very well.  The split is
> pretty arbitrary, e.g. encl.[ch] isn't simply a pure representation of an
> enclave, there is a lot of the driver details/dependencies in there, i.e.
> the functionality between encl/ioctl/driver is all pretty intertwined.
> 
> But I think serially introducing each ioctl() would be fairly clean, and
> would help readers/reviewers better understand SGX as the patches would
> naturally document the process of building an enclave, e.g. CREATE the
> enclave, then ADD_PAGES, then INIT the enclave.  SET_ATTRIBUTE is a bit
> of an outlier in that it would be chronologically out of order with
> respect to building the enclave, but I think that's ok. 
> 
> Jarkko, thoughts?

I proposed the same before I go this email so I guess we have a
consensus here.

/Jarkko