Re: [PATCH 0/6] Intel Secure Guard Extensions

[Dr. Greg Wettstein]

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:27:04AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

Good morning.

> > On Fri, 6 May 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > I fully understand if you (and others) want to keep this standpoint but
> > what if we could get it to staging after I've revised it with suggested
> >
> This should not go to staging at all. Either this is going to be a
> real useful driver or we just keep it out of tree.
> >
> > changes and internal changes in my TODO? Then it would not pollute the
> > mainline kernel but still would be easily available for experimentation.

> How are we supposed to experiment with that if there is no launch
> enclave for Linux available?

Build one in a simulator where an independent root enclave key can be
established.  At least thats the approach we are working on with
Jarkko's patches.

Intel does have an instruction accurate simulator, Microsoft used it
for the work which was reported in the Haven paper.  I believe the Air
Force academy used that simulator for their work on SGX as well.

As with other issues SGX related it is unclear why access to the
simulator was/is restricted.  Given that Gen6 hardware is now emerging
there would seem to be even less reason to not have the simulator
generically available to allow implementations to be tested.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx

Have a good day.

As always,
Dr. G.W. Wettstein, Ph.D.   Enjellic Systems Development, LLC.
4206 N. 19th Ave.           Specializing in information infra-structure
Fargo, ND  58102            development.
PH: 701-281-1686
FAX: 701-281-3949           EMAIL: greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
                                -- Albert Einstein