From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:12:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 45/62] mm: Add the encrypt_mprotect() system call for MKTME Message-Id: <20190618091246.GM3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: References: <3c658cce-7b7e-7d45-59a0-e17dae986713@intel.com> <5cbfa2da-ba2e-ed91-d0e8-add67753fc12@intel.com> <1560816342.5187.63.camel@linux.intel.com> <1560821746.5187.82.camel@linux.intel.com> <1560824611.5187.100.camel@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1560824611.5187.100.camel@linux.intel.com> To: Kai Huang Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , X86 ML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Borislav Petkov , David Howells , Kees Cook , Jacob Pan , Alison Schofield , Linux-MM , kvm list , keyrings@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Tom Lendacky On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:23:31PM +1200, Kai Huang wrote: > Assuming I am understanding the context correctly, yes from this perspective it seems having > sys_encrypt is annoying, and having ENCRYPT_ME should be better. But Dave said "nobody is going to > do what you suggest in the ptr1/ptr2 example"? You have to phrase that as: 'nobody who knows what he's doing is going to do that', which leaves lots of people and fuzzers. Murphy states that if it is possible, someone _will_ do it. And this being something that causes severe data corruption on persistent storage,...