On 4/19/19 9:24 AM, Dr. Greg wrote: >> Companies ideally shouldn't be getting their customers hooked on >> out-of-tree ABIs and customers should consume out-of-tree ABIs >> *expecting* them to break in the future. > At the risk of being indelicate, it was your company that hooked the > SGX development community on out-of-tree driver ABI's and software. I would encourage anyone who has been impacted by this to communicate that back to the folks at Intel from whom they received the out-of-tree code about the impact. > Is there going to be an OEM mandated requirement, enforced by Intel > licensing, that all SGX capable platforms will implement Flexible > Launch Control? Heck if I know. I don't think LKML is a great place to discuss Intel licensing requirements. What I *do* know is that when builds a platform without Flexible Launch Control, Linux does not support SGX on that platform. I guess that could be spelled out in some documentation explicitly, if it isn't already.
