linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an error

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: <ea61a9ee-96dc-4f23-9de3-34e033391abc@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 11:35:10 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        "pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de" <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
        "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Dhanraj, Vijay" <vijay.dhanraj@...el.com>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an error

Jarkko, Kai and Haitao,

Can you three please start trimming your replies?  You don't need to and
should not quote the entirety of your messages every time you reply.

On 8/31/22 11:28, jarkko@...nel.org wrote:
>> Will it cause racing if we expose dev nodes to user space before
>> ksgxd is started and sensitization done?
> I'll to explain this.
> 
> So the point is to fix the issue at hand, and fix it locally.
> 
> Changing initialization order is simply out of context. It's
> not really an argument for or against changing it
> 
> We are fixing sanitization here, and only that with zero
> side-effects to any other semantics.
> 
> It's dictated by the development process [*] but more
> importantly it's also just plain common sense.

Kai, I think your suggestion is reasonable.  You make a good point about
not needing ksgxd for vepc.

*But*, I think it's a bit too much for a bugfix that's headed to
-stable.  I'm concerned that it will have unintended side effects,
*especially* when there's a working, tested alternative.