Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver

2018-01-09 Thread Dr. Greg Wettstein
gine below as well, since the issues are all related. > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 03:06:43AM -0600, Dr. Greg Wettstein wrote: > > If we are talking about the issues motivating the KPTI work I don't > > have any useful information beyond what is raging through the industry > >

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver

2018-01-04 Thread Dr. Greg Wettstein
On Jan 4, 3:27pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: } Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver Wild day, enjoyed by all I'm sure. > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 03:17:24PM +0100, Cedric Blancher wrote: > > So how does this protect against the MELTDOWN attack (CVE-2017-5754) > > and the MELTATOMBOMBA4 w

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver

2018-01-04 Thread Dr. Greg Wettstein
On Jan 3, 10:48am, Pavel Machek wrote: } Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver > Hi! Good morning. > :-). Stuff proceeds as usual. Too bad it is raining outside, instead > of snowing. -19C here, so we have snow... :-) > > > So ... even with SGX, host can generate bitflips in the encla

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver

2018-01-02 Thread Dr. Greg Wettstein
On Dec 27, 9:46pm, Pavel Machek wrote: } Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver > Hi! Good evening Pavel et.al., I hope the New Year has started well for everyone. > > > Would you list guarantees provided by SGX? > > > > Obviously, confidentiality and integrity. SGX was designed to add

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver

2017-12-27 Thread Dr. Greg Wettstein
On Dec 12, 3:07pm, Pavel Machek wrote: } Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Intel SGX Driver Good morning, I hope this note finds the holiday season going well for everyone. This note is a bit delayed due to the holidays, my apologies. Pretty wide swath on this e-mail but will include the copy list

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

2016-05-13 Thread Dr. Greg Wettstein
On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 06:32:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: Good morning, running behind on e-mail this week but wanted to get some reflections out on Andy's well taken comments and concerns. > On May 8, 2016 2:59 AM, "Dr. Greg Wettstein" wrote: > > > > >

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

2016-05-12 Thread 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 n

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

2016-05-04 Thread Dr. Greg Wettstein
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:38:40PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! Good morning, I hope everyone's day is starting out well. > > I told my associates the first time I reviewed this technology that > > SGX has the ability to be a bit of a Pandora's box and it seems to be > > following that cours

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

2016-05-03 Thread Dr. Greg Wettstein
On May 2, 11:37am, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" wrote: } Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Intel Secure Guard Extensions Good morning, I hope the day is starting out well for everyone. > On 2016-04-29 16:17, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:00:10PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> On Mon 201