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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable 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 A1359C43387 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:34:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D1E21773 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:34:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730761AbeLTKeJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 05:34:09 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:6926 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727502AbeLTKeI (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 05:34:08 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Dec 2018 02:34:08 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,376,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="131535725" Received: from quwen-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.249.254.215]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2018 02:34:01 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:34:00 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: "Dr. Greg" Cc: Jethro Beekman , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "x86@kernel.org" , Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , "sean.j.christopherson@intel.com" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Lutomirski , Josh Triplett , Haitao Huang Subject: Re: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal Message-ID: <20181220103400.GC26410@linux.intel.com> References: <20181214215729.4221-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <7706b2aa71312e1f0009958bcab24e1e9d8d1237.camel@linux.intel.com> <598cd050-f0b5-d18c-96a0-915f02525e3e@fortanix.com> <20181219144343.GA31189@wind.enjellic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181219144343.GA31189@wind.enjellic.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 08:43:43AM -0600, Dr. Greg wrote: > I believe it is a silent response to the issues we were prosecuting > 4-5 weeks ago, regarding the requirement for an SGX driver on an FLC > hardware platform to have some semblance of policy management to be > relevant from a security/privacy perspective. It would have certainly > been collegial to include a reference to our discussions and concerns > in the changelog. > > See 364f68f5a3c in Jarkko's next/master. > > The changeset addresses enclave access to the PROVISION key but is > still insufficient to deliver guarantees that are consistent with the > SGX security model. In order to achieve that, policy management needs > to embrace the use of MRSIGNER values, which is what our SFLC patchset > uses. > > The noted changeset actually implements most of the 'kernel bloat' > that our SFLC patchset needs to bolt onto. > > As of yesterday afternoon next/master still won't initialize a > non-trivial enclave. Since there now appears to be a wholesale change > in the driver architecture and UAPI we are sitting on the sidelines > waiting for an indication all of that has some hope of working before > we introduce our approach. > > Part of SFLC won't be popular but it is driven by clients who are > actually paying for SGX security engineering and architectures. How many of these people are actually posting here? /Jarkko