From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EC0C43613 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2961D2085A for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730482AbfFSVOH (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:14:07 -0400 Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:46494 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730449AbfFSVOG (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:14:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by namei.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x5JLDoim030697; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:13:50 GMT Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 07:13:50 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris To: Jarkko Sakkinen cc: Sean Christopherson , linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen , Cedric Xing , Andy Lutomirski , Jethro Beekman , "Dr . Greg Wettstein" , Stephen Smalley , casey.schaufler@intel.com, william.c.roberts@intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] LSM: x86/sgx: Introduce ->enclave_load() hook for Intel SGX In-Reply-To: <0c4f75a0ae2fdeee6db07f3a224918f321163d56.camel@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <20190617222438.2080-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20190617222438.2080-10-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <0c4f75a0ae2fdeee6db07f3a224918f321163d56.camel@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-sgx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > Can LSM callbacks ever non-generic when it comes to hardware? This is > the very first time I ever see such callbacks being introduced. > > I suspect that from maintainers perspective, accepting such changes for > Intel hardware, could open a pandoras box. If there's a major distro/userbase committing to ship with these hooks enabled via a supported in-tree LSM, the case for inclusion is clear. If the hooks could be generalized beyond just SGX, that would be ideal, but it's not clear if that's feasible. -- James Morris