From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] intel_sgx: driver documentation Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:37:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20171120223741.52dj6gevcwn5jzag@linux.intel.com> References: <20171113194528.28557-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20171113194528.28557-12-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20171114083647.uxlaov56s2xw3pua@pd.tnic> <20171114204948.f6g2m62kx5gr5xtw@linux.intel.com> <20171114215327.qiqze33uvhlu555g@pd.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171114215327.qiqze33uvhlu555g@pd.tnic> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: intel-sgx-kernel-dev@lists.01.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:53:27PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:49:48PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > Pre-boot firmware could potentially configure the root key hash for the > > enclave that signs launch tokens for other enclaves i.e. the launch > > enclave that is built and signed during the kbuild. > > So how about firmware doesn't do anything and the machine owner decide > what enclaves get launched and what key hashes to load for a change? > I.e., let the owner really own the hardware she paid money for. > > Or are we doing encrypted enclaves but then the firmware vendor can look > inside too? > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. Firmware cannot access the memory inside an enclave. CPU asserts every memory access coming outside the enclave. /Jarkko