From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20124C433E0 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2A264EB4 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229761AbhBPT0U (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:26:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58808 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229572AbhBPT0T (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:26:19 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1036.google.com (mail-pj1-x1036.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1036]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB724C061574 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:25:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1036.google.com with SMTP id d2so6595908pjs.4 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:25:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=6pGhr0lLQTg5Y4WWGGYsJGmCuH6QGJ7ZmH7j+4B6fO0=; b=jcMSHmqrBxMlYE72GFYJYYQF9nFoMT8f+DpsnOohzDyd03St4i7DqZo89SaolbnFTi e2Ja5TFI5EAPny5wzmltnBh3TnjCIuBMMKD2VbabO0byZD+hbj0fv5xMkgcd96ZcfbF8 7coS2ZCkbkduIOP7Lir7k+0AXpJBUGYDQqOeb025Ah8HhINiEOq+7OEyYmz3SsTpykf1 z2T5A7RcJR3wACjRKz5B78r53Y7LSrvjB6CPezaI+HQiOnvRBGUTQf3iDGnSekdZQT8q C4Xad8BMkgdPWe5l/EXlqy9ZY8eGBSh1suVbQTPR5DMs/PtewpmyzSk9R5b/Z13UI65f rJzA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=6pGhr0lLQTg5Y4WWGGYsJGmCuH6QGJ7ZmH7j+4B6fO0=; b=qegb2LKbp7i+oXYuOxfYVxZPEw5PcGJAj56k+zo+vADqNsNWxVo1PpXoq7ZgbUGn7L ZWPxzygIHm7wjIp4VhpN+C2HBfkmT6S67c3XpJmfzdCC8U+tnf9V0oioF7VuIUnaeA0i vf5mcDs9cxc2pjAokd++h79nh974mvSdiKDhFZY0y4qKTnccjbzwamRwOIJuSy/YykaI 3uYn1eNh+Y4gCWA46yqi4eeJaq95+6nL8wpucCxqo0NwhnmXw1QsGNvXbToLWPOx30Py oeVxTPWoqKyT/8/MaHfNeOE3M+BSCHril71mNcW7AiHWF4B2QVvBQilyCgNRVvZlBep3 sl2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336tsN0Q5wXEZgvndfjHebaTQ70Fod47fZzCmxcOgKo9aY7ucn/ XtyobQ5Ll/EKVsUM0LQ8ob2nZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzGo17ipEZb1+AmMEOCTgvYjDPeWMOyjad0F6FQnkAP6Tl1TEqdffLRGZ/5kQI2xxLAmUpZZA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:224f:: with SMTP id hk15mr5582032pjb.31.1613503539177; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:25:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:f:10:6948:259b:72c6:5517]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z16sm3244505pgk.13.2021.02.16.11.25.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:25:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:25:32 -0800 From: Sean Christopherson To: Dave Hansen Cc: Kai Huang , linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, jarkko@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, haitao.huang@intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 05/26] x86/sgx: Introduce virtual EPC for use by KVM guests Message-ID: References: <4813545fa5765d05c2ed18f2e2c44275bd087c0a.1613221549.git.kai.huang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 16, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote: > > Having separate device nodes for SGX driver and KVM virtual EPC also > > allows separate permission control for running host SGX enclaves and > > KVM SGX guests. > > Specifically, 'sgx_vepc' is a less restrictive interface. It would make > a lot of sense to more tightly control access compared to 'sgx_enclave'. The opposite is just as likely, i.e. exposing SGX to a guest but not allowing enclaves in the host. Not from a "sgx_enclave is easier to abuse" perspective, but from a "enclaves should never be runnable in the host in our environment".