On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 11:01 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:44 AM Jarkko Sakkinen > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 08:45 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > I'm personally rather strongly in favor of the vastly simpler model in > > > which we first merge SGX without LE support at all. Instead we use > > > the approach where we just twiddle the MSRs to launch normal enclaves > > > without an init token at all, which is probably considerably faster > > > and will remove several thousand lines of code. If and when a bona > > > fide use case for LE support shows up, we can work out the details and > > > merge it. > > > > Andy, I was going to propose exactly the same :-) > > > > We can upstream SGX that supports only unlocked MSRs and that does > > not preventing to upstream support for locked MSRs later. Even if > > we had a consensus for locked MSRs, making two milestones for the > > mainline would make perfect sense. > > > > I came into this conclusion last night because all the other review > > comments not concerning the launch control are easily sorted out. > > +1. Let's do this and get it merged without launch enclave support > lockdown now. We can revisit this once we have hands on experience > with the technology. I'm proceeding with this ATM. I'm going to send v12 next week. I'll do my best to address all of the review comments but expect to miss some of them. /Jarkko
