> On May 2, 2020, at 4:05 PM, Dr. Greg <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 06:59:11AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > Good afternoon, I hope the weekend is going well for everyone. > >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:14:59AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:23:29AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:57:53AM -0500, Dr. Greg wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:52:56AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The current implementation requires that the firmware sets >>>>>> IA32_SGXLEPUBKEYHASH* MSRs as writable so that ultimately >>>>>> the kernel can decide what enclaves it wants run. The >>>>>> implementation does not create any bottlenecks to support >>>>>> read-only MSRs later on. >>>> >>>>> It seems highly unlikely that a driver implementation with any type of >>>>> support for read-only launch control registers would ever get into the >>>>> kernel. All one needs to do is review the conversations that Matthew >>>>> Garrett's lockdown patches engender to get a sense of that, ie: >>>>> >>>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/818277/ >>>> >>>> We do not require read-only MSRs. >>> >>> Greg is pointing out the opposite, that supporting read-only MSRs is highly >>> unlikely to ever be supported in the mainline kernel. > >> In a nutshell, what is wrong in the current code changes and what >> *exactly* should we change? This is way too high level at the moment >> at least for my limited brain capacity. > > In a nutshell, the driver needs our patch that implements > cryptographic policy management. > > A patch that: > > 1.) Does not change the default behavior of the driver. > > 2.) Implements capabilities that are consistent with what the hardware > was designed to do, but only at the discretion of the platform owner. > > 3.) Has no impact on the driver architecture. > > The only consumer for this driver are SGX runtimes. To our knowledge, > there exist only two complete runtime implementations, Intel's and > ours. It us unclear why our approach to the use of the technology > should be discriminated against when it doesn't impact the other user > community. Can you clarify how exactly this patch set discriminates against your stack? > > The Linux kernel that I have worked on and supported since 1992 has > always focused on technical rationale and meritocracy rather then > politics. We would be interested in why our proposal for the driver > fails on the former grounds rather then the latter. > >> /Jarkko > > Best wishes for a productive week. > > Dr. Greg > > As always, > Dr. Greg Wettstein, Ph.D, Worker Artisans in autonomously > Enjellic Systems Development, LLC self-defensive IOT platforms > 4206 N. 19th Ave. and edge devices. > Fargo, ND 58102 > PH: 701-281-1686 EMAIL: greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." > -- Alan Kay
