On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:04:09AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:38:25AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 01:54:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 6 May 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 04:06:27AM -0500, Dr. Greg Wettstein wrote: > > > > > It would be helpful and instructive for anyone involved in this debate > > > > > to review the following URL which details Intel's SGX licening > > > > > program: > > > > > > > > > > https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-sgx-product-licensing > > > > > > > > I think it would be good to note that the licensing process is available > > > > only for Windows. For Linux you can only use debug enclaves at the > > > > moment. The default LE has "allow-all" policy for debug enclaves. > > > > > > Which makes the feature pretty useless. > > > > > > > > I think the only way forward to make all of this palatable is to > > > > > embrace something similar to what has been done with Secure Boot. The > > > > > Root Enclave Key will need to be something which can be reconfigured > > > > > by the Platform Owner through BIOS/EFI. That model would take Intel > > > > > off the hook from a security perspective and establish the notion of > > > > > platform trust to be a bilateral relationship between a service > > > > > provider and client. > > > > > > > > This concern has been raised many times now. Sadly this did not make > > > > into Skyle but in future we will have one shot MSRs (can be set only > > > > once per boot cycle) for defining your own root of trust. > > > > > > We'll wait for that to happen. > > > > 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 > > changes and internal changes in my TODO? Then it would not pollute the > > mainline kernel but still would be easily available for experimentation. > > No, staging is not a "dumping ground", it's for code that is not ready > to be merged, and has some work left to do on it and it shows forward > progress on that goal. I don't put things in there that the maintainers > of the subsystems it affects do not want merged. See the many previous > examples of code that has been rejected for staging as examples of this. > > sorry, NP, point taken. > greg k-h /Jarkko _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
