On Tue, Mar 02, 2021, Kai Huang 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? The KVM use case is to query /proc/cpuinfo to see if sgx2 can be enabled in a guest. The counter-argument to that is we might want sgx2 in /proc/cpuinfo to mean sgx2 is enabled in hardware _and_ supported by the kernel. Userspace can grep for sgx in /proc/cpuinfo, and use cpuid to discover sgx2, so it's not a blocker. That being said, adding some form of capability/versioning to SGX seems inevitable, not sure it's worth witholding sgx2 from /proc/cpuinfo.
