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

[One Thousand Gnomes]

> But... that will mean that my ssh will need to be SGX-aware, and that
> I will not be able to switch to AMD machine in future. ... or to other
> Intel machine for that matter, right?

I'm not privy to AMD's CPU design plans.

However I think for the ssl/ssh case you'd use the same interfaces
currently available for plugging in TPMs and dongles. It's a solved
problem in the crypto libraries.

> What new syscalls would be needed for ssh to get all this support?

I don't see why you'd need new syscalls.

> Ookay... I guess I can get a fake Replay Protected Memory block, which
> will confirm that write happened and not do anything from China, but

It's not quite that simple because there are keys and a counter involved
but I am sure doable.

> And, again, it means that quite complex new kernel-user interface will
> be needed, right?

Why ? For user space we have perfectly good existing system calls, for
kernel space we have existing interfaces to the crypto and key layers for
modules to use.

Alan