Re: [PATCH 0/6] Intel Secure Guard Extensions

From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Mon Apr 25 2016 - 15:21:30 EST


On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:53:52AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 08:34:07PM +0300, 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.
>> >
>> > The firmware uses PRMRR registers to reserve an area of physical memory
>> > called Enclave Page Cache (EPC). There is a hardware unit in the
>> > processor called Memory Encryption Engine. The MEE encrypts and decrypts
>> > the EPC pages as they enter and leave the processor package.
>> >
>> > Jarkko Sakkinen (5):
>> > x86, sgx: common macros and definitions
>> > intel_sgx: driver for Intel Secure Guard eXtensions
>> > intel_sgx: ptrace() support for the driver
>> > intel_sgx: driver documentation
>> > intel_sgx: TODO file for the staging area
>> >
>> > Kai Huang (1):
>> > x86: add SGX definition to cpufeature
>> >
>> > Documentation/x86/intel_sgx.txt | 86 +++
>> > arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 1 +
>> > arch/x86/include/asm/sgx.h | 253 +++++++
>>
>> Why are you asking for this to go into staging?
>>
>> What is keeping it out of the "real" part of the kernel tree?
>
> Now that I think of it nothing as long as the API is fixed the way you
> suggested and my TODO list is cleared.
>
> I think I prepare a new version of the patches and point it directly
> to arch/x86.

Thanks. Please cc me as well.

--Andy

>
>> And staging code is self-contained, putting files in arch/* isn't ok for
>> it, which kind of implies that you should get this merged correctly.
>>
>> I need a lot more information here before I can take this code...
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>
> /Jarkko



--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC