From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [intel-sgx-kernel-dev] [PATCH v11 13/13] intel_sgx: in-kernel launch enclave Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:43:46 +0300 Message-ID: <689641dc26a91f7b4b6bfdb763fec90bf7c3e984.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20180608171216.26521-14-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20180611115255.GC22164@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20180612174535.GE19168@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20180620210158.GA24328@linux.intel.com> <73b7e4e3712074b73f4ac8211699d24dfdced6bf.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: npmccallum@redhat.com, "Christopherson, Sean J" , Jethro Beekman , nhorman@redhat.com, X86 ML , Platform Driver , LKML , Ingo Molnar , intel-sgx-kernel-dev@lists.01.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Darren Hart , Thomas Gleixner , andy@infradead.org, Peter Jones List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 08:45 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I'm personally rather strongly in favor of the vastly simpler model in > which we first merge SGX without LE support at all. Instead we use > the approach where we just twiddle the MSRs to launch normal enclaves > without an init token at all, which is probably considerably faster > and will remove several thousand lines of code. If and when a bona > fide use case for LE support shows up, we can work out the details and > merge it. Andy, I was going to propose exactly the same :-) We can upstream SGX that supports only unlocked MSRs and that does not preventing to upstream support for locked MSRs later. Even if we had a consensus for locked MSRs, making two milestones for the mainline would make perfect sense. I came into this conclusion last night because all the other review comments not concerning the launch control are easily sorted out. /Jarkko