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: <94993d90b0b3c59fae61427cf0cc78dd10c381bb.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 20:42:59 +0000
From:   "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        "haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com" <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "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>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an error

On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 11:35 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. Thanks Dave/Jarkko.

-- 
Thanks,
-Kai