Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: ZJhZhyHehvW/g29fNP4/8+w3qqlrmaEUq+zFfrn4MeCLpcq/Syf43iClscJoKJsC7JfeQrOxVy
 3gvxA9SUjQag==
IronPort-SDR: VOTVsbRJbD49pzQSkQdPM+6nI5c9fCzBN6AfdleYJKGnsaDNaYTIURnGp+qAn2J48BV80oxTue
 xpdDqzPZtADw==
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:59:11 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     "Dr. Greg" <greg@enjellic.com>, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, nhorman@redhat.com, npmccallum@redhat.com,
        haitao.huang@intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, kai.svahn@intel.com, bp@alien8.de,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, luto@kernel.org, kai.huang@intel.com,
        rientjes@google.com, cedric.xing@intel.com, puiterwijk@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v29 00/20] Intel SGX foundations
Message-ID: <20200430035850.GC31820@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200421215316.56503-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20200426165753.GA11046@wind.enjellic.com>
 <20200429052329.GD8452@linux.intel.com>
 <20200429151459.GC15992@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200429151459.GC15992@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:14:59AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:23:29AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:57:53AM -0500, Dr. Greg wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:52:56AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > 
> > > Good day, I hope the weekend is going well for everyone.
> > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > ... [ elided ] ..
> > > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > It seems highly unlikely that a driver implementation with any type of
> > > support for read-only launch control registers would ever get into the
> > > kernel.  All one needs to do is review the conversations that Matthew
> > > Garrett's lockdown patches engender to get a sense of that, ie:
> > > 
> > > https://lwn.net/Articles/818277/
> > 
> > We do not require read-only MSRs.
> 
> Greg is pointing out the opposite, that supporting read-only MSRs is highly
> unlikely to ever be supported in the mainline kernel.

In a nutshell, what is wrong in the current code changes and what
*exactly* should we change? This is way too high level at the moment at
least for my limited brain capacity.

/Jarkko