linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Declare sgx_set_attribute() for !CONFIG_X86

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <80cb912c6ef946a0b0c82bfdccaa92c82fe41d47.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 07 Sep 2021 16:37:46 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Declare sgx_set_attribute() for !CONFIG_X86_SGX

On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 10:35 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/09/21 17:58, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Eh, it doesn't really simplify the usage.  If anything it makes it more convoluted
> > > because the capability check in kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension() still needs an
> > > #ifdef, e.g. readers will wonder why the check is conditional but the usage is not.
> > It does objectively a bit, since it's one ifdef less.
> 
> But you're effectively replacing #ifdef CONFIG_X86_SGX_KVM with #ifdef 
> CONFIG_X86_SGX; so the patch is not a no-op as far as KVM is concerned.
> 
> So NACK for the KVM parts (yeah I know it's RFC but just to be clearer), 
> but I agree that adding a stub inline version of the function is 
> standard practice and we do it a lot in KVM too.

OK, this is perfectly fine for me (I care most that we can do this in
SGX side).

/Jarkko