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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 511F7C43142 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 21:06:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08BBE26149 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 21:06:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 08BBE26149 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754559AbeFYVG1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:06:27 -0400 Received: from mail-ot0-f194.google.com ([74.125.82.194]:42018 "EHLO mail-ot0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752086AbeFYVGZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:06:25 -0400 Received: by mail-ot0-f194.google.com with SMTP id 92-v6so16650042otw.9 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Fq7Qvko4bO77TBaoA3jFD93Lj7FAGEYEB+dfyb+A75g=; b=Ew9VhovEDW/fgAG9H89xeoLbnEePicYgXq2f6QIFHc0RbguAAczMmkZEtupcaTQz49 LwTJpEtDiNLtdqUnWvgNjzA0bhwaluCGtA5Re/vPFL0YycxUWkdUXYO6wNZleYZjXOhd vRgof1X1/THBTulJrBv2Z2pcv6xD57Q/BZPUsLS59nNO1rfUkpox6graNf8giS31JQUI NjRNo8dooF4qJmmopf1FPxZnrVhb0FzlymM91HnfPLB82dJlYWW8LUAp2tAfHTmSfrIa lk6mU/mvF0oAIAUs8reVHjvbttrHa8q4Tn8/O0ilETybPQ+YA+TTLzULZlDjQhmFkLPq eITg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3b5dxY3JDp/kSz7NdYOkRMdkoDUNTcJgG4VlSttmhZwDsEf9Rb Uin31L9EcALq+KJgaFoADQhgMhtIMr22n63NmaoOVw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdribohFMDhECRxjtAfZpK8NGR9+L4RGRdUSm2R1Eez1TXTMvW795lwesp2/PwEBvk/mKbtJkKMYg1N3eoczDE= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:132e:: with SMTP id f43-v6mr3225535ote.340.1529960784440; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:06:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180611115255.GC22164@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20180612174535.GE19168@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20180620210158.GA24328@linux.intel.com> <20180621152903.GB1324@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: From: Nathaniel McCallum Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:06:12 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [intel-sgx-kernel-dev] [PATCH v11 13/13] intel_sgx: in-kernel launch enclave To: luto@kernel.org Cc: Neil Horman , sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, jethro@fortanix.com, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, intel-sgx-kernel-dev@lists.01.org, hpa@zytor.com, dvhart@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, andy@infradead.org, Peter Jones Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:49 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:11 PM Nathaniel McCallum > wrote: > > > > If this is acceptable for everyone, my hope is the following: > > > > 1. Intel would split the existing code into one of the following > > schemas (I don't care which): > > A. three parts: UEFI module, FLC-only kernel driver and user-space > > launch enclave > > B. two parts: UEFI module (including launch enclave) and FLC-only > > kernel driver > > > > 2. Intel would release a reproducible build of the GPL UEFI module > > sources signed with a SecureBoot trusted key and provide an > > acceptable[0] binary redistribution license. > > > > 3. The kernel community would agree to merge the kernel driver given > > the above criteria (and, obviously, acceptable kernel code). > > > > The question of how to distribute the UEFI module and possible launch > > enclave remains open. I see two options: independent distribution and > > bundling it in linux-firmware. The former may be a better > > technological fit since the UEFI module will likely need to be run > > before the kernel (and the boot loader; and shim). However, the latter > > has the benefit of already being a well-known entity to our downstream > > distributors. I could go either way on this. > > This is a lot of complication and effort for a gain that is not > entirely clear. Root kits and evil maid attacks are two worth considering. > I really really really do *not* want to see Intel or > anyone else start enforcing policy on which programs can and cannot > run using this mechanism. We already do this. It is called SecureBoot. > (This is exactly why non-FLC systems aren't > about to be supported upstream.) So my preference is to not merge > anything that supports this type of use case unless there is > compelling evidence that it is (a) genuinely useful, (b) will be used > to improve security and (c) won't be abused for, say, revenue > purposes. I think there are benefits for (a) and (b). I agree with you about (c). But, again, we already have SecureBoot.