On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 05:43:06 -0600, Kai Huang <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 12:32 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 12:28:27AM +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
> I think some script can utilize /proc/cpuinfo. For instance, admin
can have
> automation tool/script to deploy enclave (with sgx2) apps, and that
script can check
> whether platform supports sgx2 or not, before it can deploy those
enclave apps. Or
> enclave author may just want to check /proc/cpuinfo to know whether
the machine can
> be used for testing sgx2 enclave or not.
This doesn't sound like a concrete use of this. So you can hide it
initially with "" until you guys have a use case. Exposing it later is
always easy vs exposing it now and then not being able to change it
anymore.
Hi Haitao, Jarkko,
Do you have more concrete use case of needing "sgx2" in /proc/cpuinfo?
I don't have specific use cases so far. But I think users would expect all
sub-features supported by the cpu in /proc/cpuinfo. And it is a more
convenient and readily available tool than cpuid for verifying sgx2
enabled in HW. So it'd be just nice for cpuinfo to be consistent with
cpuid output.
Thanks
Haitao
