From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932245AbcELIuv (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2016 04:50:51 -0400 Received: from wind.enjellic.com ([76.10.64.91]:54561 "EHLO wind.enjellic.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932172AbcELIug (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2016 04:50:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 03:50:14 -0500 From: "Dr. Greg Wettstein" To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen , "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" , Pavel Machek , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Andy Lutomirski , Borislav Petkov , Boris Ostrovsky , "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" , Ingo Molnar , Kristen Carlson Accardi , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , open list , Mathias Krause , Wan Zongshun Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Intel Secure Guard Extensions Message-ID: <20160512085014.GA9343@wind.enjellic.com> Reply-To: "Dr. Greg Wettstein" References: <1461605698-12385-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20160426190009.GC8162@amd> <20160429201744.GD27821@intel.com> <142feb98-3a97-0b00-0b17-b029fa2c637f@gmail.com> <20160503090627.GA27301@wind.enjellic.com> <20160506113944.GE24074@intel.com> <20160509053825.GA20986@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Operating-System: name -s -r X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (wind.enjellic.com [0.0.0.0]); Thu, 12 May 2016 03:50:15 -0500 (CDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:27:04AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: Good morning. > > On Fri, 6 May 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > I fully understand if you (and others) want to keep this standpoint but > > what if we could get it to staging after I've revised it with suggested > > > This should not go to staging at all. Either this is going to be a > real useful driver or we just keep it out of tree. > > > > changes and internal changes in my TODO? Then it would not pollute the > > mainline kernel but still would be easily available for experimentation. > How are we supposed to experiment with that if there is no launch > enclave for Linux available? Build one in a simulator where an independent root enclave key can be established. At least thats the approach we are working on with Jarkko's patches. Intel does have an instruction accurate simulator, Microsoft used it for the work which was reported in the Haven paper. I believe the Air Force academy used that simulator for their work on SGX as well. As with other issues SGX related it is unclear why access to the simulator was/is restricted. Given that Gen6 hardware is now emerging there would seem to be even less reason to not have the simulator generically available to allow implementations to be tested. > Thanks, > > tglx Have a good day. As always, Dr. G.W. Wettstein, Ph.D. Enjellic Systems Development, LLC. 4206 N. 19th Ave. Specializing in information infra-structure Fargo, ND 58102 development. PH: 701-281-1686 FAX: 701-281-3949 EMAIL: greg@enjellic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein