Re: [PATCH v7 00/13] selftests/sgx: Fix compilation errors

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri Oct 13, 2023 at 2:45 PM EEST, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> On 10.10.23 11:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Folks (sorry for top posting): I've now taken my old NUC7 out of the
> > dust and tested the series :-)
> > 
> > Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for testing this Jarkko! Not sure on next steps, do you want me 
> to re-post the series with the Tested-by tag for all commits or will you 
> add that? Let me know if something from my side is needed.

Dave, can you pick these patches to the x86 tree with my tested-by
added? Sorry for latency. It is flu season in Finland and I've been
functional varying last week because of that.

> > Off-topic: I wish both Intel and AMD straighten up and deliver some "home friendly" development hardware for the  latest stuff. Just my
> > stance but the biggest quality risk I see in both TDX and SNP is that
> > the patches are made by an enterprise and reviewed (properly) *only*
> > by other huge enterprises.
>
> Yes, I totally agree on this. It is really unfortunate that things like 
> SGX are not (anymore) available on home consumer hardware and you have 
> to buy expensive servers for this, which also change every new CPU 
> generation. Having some kind of "developer boards" like is more the case 
> in embedded systems would be a great and very welcome evolution, if only 
> it were to happen..
>
> > I skim status of both from time to time but yeah not much attachment
> > or motivation to do more than that as you either need a cloud access
> > or partnership with Intel or AMD. "Indie" style seems to be disliked
> > these days... You can extrapolate from this that there must be a bunch
> > of maintainers around the Linux kernel that feel the same. Not saying
> > that particularly my contribution would be that important.
> > 
> > Sort of even if let's say Intel would provide me a partner access I
> > might not be that interested because I prefer my own (physical)
> > computers.
>
> I also understand this and share the concern. FWIW for some things 
> (e.g., uarch attack research) remote access does also not really hold up 
> to bare-metal access IMO.
>
> Best,
> Jo

BR, Jarkko