Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 08:20:02 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com,
        nhorman@redhat.com, npmccallum@redhat.com, serge.ayoun@intel.com,
        shay.katz-zamir@intel.com, haitao.huang@intel.com,
        mark.shanahan@intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 23/23] x86/sgx: Driver documentation
Message-ID: <20181106062002.GA18360@linux.intel.com>
References: <20181102231320.29164-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20181102231320.29164-24-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <154ded23-fd1d-f324-4e0a-9de8eddcda6d@intel.com>
 <20181106054911.GA15575@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181106054911.GA15575@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 07:49:11AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:27:11PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > The ABI seems entirely undocumented and rather lightly designed, which
> > seems like something we should fix before this is merged.
> 
> ABI is documented in arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sgx.h that from which the
> documentation is included to intel_sgx.rst. I'm not saying that there is
> no space refine it but it is neither undocumented.
> 
> > Also, for a feature as massive and complicated as this one, it seems
> > irresponsible to not have a selftest.  Is that not feasible for some reason?
> 
> I do have the in-kernel launch enclave stuff backed up here:
> 
> https://github.com/jsakkine-intel/sgx-le-host
> https://github.com/jsakkine-intel/sgx-le
> 
> This is about as simple as it gets without any type of run-time.

Of course the enclave could be simplified considerably since now it has
full code for EINITTOKEN generation, which is probably an overkill for a
selftest.

It could be simple as just enter and return to and from enclave or
something in-between in terms of complexity.

Even for the simplest enclave you need a signing tool (see sgxsign.c in
my sgx-le repository), a custom linker script and a sophisticated
makefile.

/Jarkko