linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/sgx: Add accounting for tracking overcommit

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]

Date:   Wed, 22 Dec 2021 06:21:45 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/sgx: Add accounting for tracking overcommit

On 12/20/21 1:35 PM, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> Thanks for your more detailed explanation - I will take a look at the
> VM overcommit limits. Since obviously the original implementation did
> have a default value set, I had still a remaining specific question
> about your comments. Are you suggesting that there should not be a way
> to override any overcommit limit at all? So drop the parameter all
> together?

Yes, let's kill the exposed tunable.

We don't have any strong, practical need for it at the moment other than
paranoia.