linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/25] x86/sgx: Introduce virtual EPC for use by KVM guests

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: <20210331195138.2af97ec1bb4b5e4202f2600d@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:51:38 +1300
From:   Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     Boris Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     seanjc@...gle.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        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 v3 05/25] x86/sgx: Introduce virtual EPC for use by KVM
 guests

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 08:44:23 +0200 Boris Petkov wrote:
> On March 31, 2021 3:10:32 AM GMT+02:00, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com> wrote: 
> 
> > The admin will be aware of
> >such EPC
> >allocation disjoint situation, and deploy host enclaves/KVM SGX guests
> >accordingly.
> 
> The admin will be aware because...
> 
> 1) he's following our discussion?
> 
> 2) he'll read the commit messages and hopefully understand?
> 
> 3) we *actually* have documentation somewhere explaining how we envision that stuff to be used?
> 
> Or none of the above and he'll end up doing whatever and then he'll eventually figure out that we don't support that use case but he's doing it already anyway and we don't break userspace so we have to support it now and we're stuck somewhere between a rock and a hard place?
> 
> Hmm, I think we have enough misguided use cases as it is - don't need another one.

How about adding explanation to Documentation/x86/sgx.rst?