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: <CUE17WOKP8HH.39KZQV0H8IRBV@seitikki>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2023 18:54:39 +0000
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 Mon Jul 24, 2023 at 10:46 AM UTC, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> On 22.07.23 20:10, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > This code is not meant for production. I implemented it specifically for
> > kselftest, and that is exactly its scope.
>
> I see, makes sense. As per Dave's suggestion, I'll see if I can submit a 
> proposed minimal patch to remove any existing sanitization code that is 
> not necessary for kselftest (eg register cleansing) and avoid any 
> misguided impressions of the test enclave being representative.
>
> > I'm not sure what is "correct" behavior in the context of a kselftest
> > instance.
>
> True. But at least when defining "correct" as passing the selftests, 
> then I think it makes sense to merge the compiler optimization fixes. As 
> the existing code clearly emits wrong assembly that breaks the selftests 
> when switching optimization levels (which may always also be 
> incorporated by default in future gcc versions or other compilers like 
> clang).
>
> Thus, I'll separate this out and submit another patch to ensure 
> correctness with compiler optimizations only.
>
> Best,
> Jo

It should be relatively easy to relicense the code as most of the
commits have Intel copyright.

Personally I would not mind because that would give opportunity for
code that I wrote to have a wider audience but it needs to be forked
with some other license first.

BR, Jarkko