linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/25] x86/sgx: Support enclave page permission changes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 11 Dec 2021 07:17:13 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:     dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
        luto@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, seanjc@...gle.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
        cathy.zhang@...el.com, cedric.xing@...el.com,
        haitao.huang@...el.com, mark.shanahan@...el.com, hpa@...or.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/25] x86/sgx: Support enclave page permission changes

On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 12:19 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/4/21 3:08 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Enclave page permission changes need to be approached with care and
> > > for this reason this initial support is to allow enclave page
> > > permission changes _only_ if the new permissions are the same or
> > > more restrictive that the permissions originally vetted at the time the
> > > pages were added to the enclave. Support for extending enclave page
> > > permissions beyond what was originally vetted is deferred.
> > This paragraph is out-of-scope for a commit message. You could have
> > this in the cover letter but not here. I would just remove it.
> 
> This does convey valuable information, though.  It tells the reader that
> this is a sub-optimal implementation.  It also acknowledges that there
> is further work to do.  Maybe saying that it is "deferred" is not quite
> the verbiage I would use, but the concept is fine.

BTW, should we consistently speak about protection bits instead of
permissions?

/Jarkko