linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v39 08/24] x86/sgx: Initialize metadata for Enclave Page Cache (EPC) sections

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:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 06:40:34 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@...cle.com>,
        Serge Ayoun <serge.ayoun@...el.com>, 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,
        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, tglx@...utronix.de, yaozhangx@...gle.com,
        mikko.ylinen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v39 08/24] x86/sgx: Initialize metadata for Enclave Page
 Cache (EPC) sections

On 10/19/20 1:45 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:50:43AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> +config INTEL_SGX
> Since the directory for this was renamed some iterations ago from
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx to intel_sgx given the feedback from Boris,
> I'm wondering should this also be renamed as X86_SGX?

I say yes for two reasons:

We're recently adding a prohibition against vendors adding
VENDOR_FEATURE, preferring "FEATURE" instead.  But, I seriously doubt
anyone else is going to to to the effort that Intel did here.

Also "SGX" is short enough that I can imagine someone else plausibly
wanting to do CONFIG_SGX for something else.

So, I'm OK with keeping "INTEL_SGX", but I'd also be fine with "X86_SGX".