[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a27c9c32e410fc3582f3593f209cc1cf3b287042.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:14:49 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "petr@...arici.cz" <petr@...arici.cz>
CC: "Xu, Pengfei" <pengfei.xu@...el.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
<tglx@...utronix.de>, "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"brgerst@...il.com" <brgerst@...il.com>, "dwmw@...zon.co.uk"
<dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Li, Xin3"
<xin3.li@...el.com>, "roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com"
<roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>, "petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com"
<petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>, "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "rppt@...nel.org"
<rppt@...nel.org>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, "mhiramat@...nel.org"
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>, "Huang, Kai"
<kai.huang@...el.com>, "jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com"
<jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, "zegao2021@...il.com" <zegao2021@...il.com>,
"Rodel, Jorg" <jroedel@...e.de>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"jpoimboe@...nel.org" <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, "Zhang, Tina"
<tina.zhang@...el.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"petrtesarik@...weicloud.com" <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] x86_64 SandBox Mode arch hooks
On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 17:41 +0100, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> Second, a sandbox can run unmodified kernel code and interact
> directly
> with other parts of the kernel. It's not really possible with this
> initial patch series, but the plan is that sandbox mode can share
> locks
> with the kernel.
>
> Third, sandbox code can be trusted for operations like parsing keys
> for
> the trusted keychain if the kernel is locked down, i.e. when even a
> process with UID 0 is not on the same trust level as kernel mode.
What use case needs to have the sandbox both protected from the kernel
(trusted operations) and non-privileged (the kernel protected from it
via CPL3)? It seems like opposite things.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists