On 7/20/23 15:16, Jo Van Bulck wrote: > While I understand that the bare-metal Intel SGX selftest enclave is > certainly not intended as a full-featured independent production runtime, > it has been noted on this mailing list before that "people are likely to > copy this code for their own enclaves" and that it provides a "great > starting point if you want to do things from scratch" [1]. I wholeheartedly agree with the desire to spin up enclaves without the overhead or complexity of the SDK. I think I'm the one that asked for this test enclave in the first place. There *IS* a gap here. Those who care about SGX would be wise to close this gap in _some_ way. But I don't think the kernel should be the place this is done. The kernel should not be hosting a real-world (userspace) SGX reference implementation. I'd fully support if you'd like to take the selftest code, fork it, and maintain it. The SGX ecosystem would be better off if such a project existed. If I can help here in some way like (trying to) release the SGX selftest under a different license, please let me know. The only patches I want for the kernel are to make the test enclave more *obviously* insecure. So, it's a NAK from me for this series. I won't support merging this into the kernel. But at the same time, I'm very sympathetic to your cause, and I do appreciate your effort here.
