linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] selftests/sgx: Harden test enclave

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: <CU76BC9V7H3Z.TQ3L8AZY1WD@suppilovahvero>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 20:25:34 +0300
From:   "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     "Jo Van Bulck" <jo.vanbulck@...kuleuven.be>,
        <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] selftests/sgx: Harden test enclave

On Wed Jul 19, 2023 at 5:24 PM EEST, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> While I understand that the bare-metal Intel SGX selftest enclave is
> certainly not intended as a full-featured independent production runtime,
> it has been noted on this mailing list before that "people are likely to
> copy this code for their own enclaves" and that it provides a "great
> starting point if you want to do things from scratch" [1]. Thus, proper and
> complete example code is vital for security-sensitive functionality, like the
> selftest example enclave.

If anyone copied the source code for their own enclave, they would have
to publish their source code, given the GPLv2 license.

There's a lot of source code in kselftest, which probably has at least
some security issues.

I'm not sure, at least based on this motivation, why would we care?

BR, Jarkko