linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/25] x86/cpufeatures: Add SGX1 and SGX2 sub-features

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:   Tue, 02 Mar 2021 09:48:56 -0600
From:   "Haitao Huang" <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>, "Kai Huang" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, seanjc@...gle.com, jarkko@...nel.org,
        luto@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
        haitao.huang@...el.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/25] x86/cpufeatures: Add SGX1 and SGX2 sub-features

On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 05:43:06 -0600, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 12:32 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 12:28:27AM +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
>> > I think some script can utilize /proc/cpuinfo. For instance, admin  
>> can have
>> > automation tool/script to deploy enclave (with sgx2) apps, and that  
>> script can check
>> > whether platform supports sgx2 or not, before it can deploy those  
>> enclave apps. Or
>> > enclave author may just want to check /proc/cpuinfo to know whether  
>> the machine can
>> > be used for testing sgx2 enclave or not.
>>
>> This doesn't sound like a concrete use of this. So you can hide it
>> initially with "" until you guys have a use case. Exposing it later is
>> always easy vs exposing it now and then not being able to change it
>> anymore.
>>
>
> Hi Haitao, Jarkko,
>
> Do you have more concrete use case of needing "sgx2" in /proc/cpuinfo?
>

I don't have specific use cases so far. But I think users would expect all  
sub-features supported by the cpu in /proc/cpuinfo. And it is a more  
convenient and readily available tool than cpuid for verifying sgx2  
enabled in HW. So it'd be just nice for cpuinfo to be consistent with  
cpuid output.

Thanks
Haitao