lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v29 00/20] Intel SGX foundations
    From
    Date
    On 2020-04-30 10:23, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 09:19:48AM +0200, Jethro Beekman wrote:
    >> On 2020-04-30 05:46, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:27:48PM +0200, Jethro Beekman wrote:
    >>>> On 2020-04-21 23:52, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    >>>>> Intel(R) SGX is a set of CPU instructions that can be used by applications
    >>>>> to set aside private regions of code and data. The code outside the enclave
    >>>>> is disallowed to access the memory inside the enclave by the CPU access
    >>>>> control.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There is a new hardware unit in the processor called Memory Encryption
    >>>>> Engine (MEE) starting from the Skylake microacrhitecture. BIOS can define
    >>>>> one or many MEE regions that can hold enclave data by configuring them with
    >>>>> PRMRR registers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The MEE automatically encrypts the data leaving the processor package to
    >>>>> the MEE regions. The data is encrypted using a random key whose life-time
    >>>>> is exactly one power cycle.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You can tell if your CPU supports SGX by looking into /proc/cpuinfo:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep sgx
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's merge this.
    >>>
    >>> So can I tag reviewed-by's?
    >>>
    >>
    >> No, but you already have my tested-by's.
    >>
    >> If it helps I can try to review some patches, but 1) I know nothing
    >> about kernel coding guidelines and best practices and 2) I know little
    >> about most kernel internals, so I won't be able to review every patch.
    >
    > Ackd-by *acknowledges* that the patches work for you. I think that would
    > be then the correct choice for the driver patch and patches before that.
    >
    > Lets go with that if that is cool for you of course.
    >
    > Did you run the selftest only or possibly also some internal Fortanix
    > tests?
    >

    v29 patches 2 through 18:

    Acked-by: Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>

    I only ran production SGX software. I didn't run the self test.

    --
    Jethro Beekman | Fortanix

    [unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-04-30 16:13    [W:2.964 / U:0.732 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site