[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201003143246.GA800720@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 16:32:46 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, asapek@...gle.com, bp@...en8.de,
cedric.xing@...el.com, chenalexchen@...gle.com,
conradparker@...gle.com, cyhanish@...gle.com,
dave.hansen@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
kai.svahn@...el.com, kmoy@...gle.com, ludloff@...gle.com,
luto@...nel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com,
puiterwijk@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
yaozhangx@...gle.com, mikko.ylinen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v39 00/24] Intel SGX foundations
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:50:35AM +0300, 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
I might be late to the game, but why are you trying to dual-license the
new files you are adding in this patch? How will that help anyone?
I have had many talks with Intel about this in the past, and last I
heard was that when dual-licensing made sense, they would be explicit as
to why it was happening. Or is my memory failing me?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists