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: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:27:53 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20180608171216.26521-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20180608171216.26521-14-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20180611115255.GC22164@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20180612174535.GE19168@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> 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: Nathaniel McCallum , luto@kernel.org Cc: Neil Horman , x86@kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, intel-sgx-kernel-dev@lists.01.org, hpa@zytor.com, dvhart@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, andy@infradead.org, Peter Jones List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:28 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > As I understand it, the current policy models under discussion look like this: > > 1. SGX w/o FLC (not being merged) looks like this: > Intel CPU => (Intel signed) launch enclave => enclaves > > 2. SGX w/ FLC, looks like this: > Intel CPU => kernel => launch enclave => enclaves > > 3. Andy is proposing this: > Intel CPU => kernel => enclaves What if MSRs are not writable after hand over to the OS? It is a legit configuration at least according to the SDM. /Jarkko