From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966158AbeAJQRR (ORCPT + 1 other); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:17:17 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:25125 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965981AbeAJQRL (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:17:11 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,341,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="8610249" Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:16:56 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: greg@enjellic.com Cc: Pavel Machek , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov , "David S. Miller" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Grzegorz Andrejczuk , Haim Cohen , Ingo Molnar , Janakarajan Natarajan , Jim Mattson , Kan Liang , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Kyle Huey , Len Brown , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , "open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)" , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Paolo Bonzini , Piotr Luc , Radim Kr??m???? , Randy Dunlap , Sean Christopherson , Thomas Gleixner , Tom Lendacky , Vikas Shivappa Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver Message-ID: <20180110161656.hftp6lsnut7u6klr@linux.intel.com> References: <201801092150.w09LoNtB017301@wind.enjellic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201801092150.w09LoNtB017301@wind.enjellic.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:50:23PM -0600, Dr. Greg Wettstein wrote: > > Everything going out of L1 gets encrypted. This is done to defend > > against peripheral like adversaries and should work also against > > meltdown. > > I don't believe this is an architecturally correct assertion. The > encryption/decryption occurs at the 'bottom' of the cache heirarchy. You are right and I was wrong. It is plain from L1 to LLC, which implies as you correctly described potential cache missing attacks in addition to timing attacks. /Jarkko