linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v40 00/24] Intel SGX foundations

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: <5ac4eccb-fcf9-eed3-fcec-b8b6bf56bb39@intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 21 Nov 2020 08:25:23 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>,
        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,
        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 v40 00/24] Intel SGX foundations

On 11/21/20 7:12 AM, Dr. Greg wrote:
>> Important Kernel Touch Points
>> =============================
>>
>> This implementation is picky and will decline to work on hardware which
>> is locked to Intel's root of trust.
> Given that this driver is no longer locked to the Intel trust root, by
> virtue of being restricted to run only on platforms which support
> Flexible Launch Control, there is no longer any legitimate technical
> reason to not expose all of the functionality of the hardware.

I honestly can't understand what the point of this is, and I mean that
on multiple levels.

First of all, there's not a coherent description of the problem you're
solving with ~700 lines of code and the treatise you wrote here instead
of a changelog.

Second, is the point here to distract folks from testing the branch in
the tip tree?  Or, is it to show appreciation to maintainers by giving
them more of the thing they love: code to review?