Hi Stephen,
> From: linux-sgx-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-sgx-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Smalley
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 8:34 AM
>
> On 6/3/19 2:30 PM, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> >> From: Christopherson, Sean J
> >> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 10:16 AM
> >>
> >> On
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 11:33:44AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> The RFC series seemed to dispense with the use of the sigstruct file and
> just used the source file throughout IIUC. That allowed for reuse of
> FILE__* permissions without ambiguity rather than introducing separate
> ENCLAVE__*
On 6/3/19 2:30 PM, Xing, Cedric wrote:
From: Christopherson, Sean J
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 10:16 AM
On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 12:29:35AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
Hi Sean,
Generally I agree with your direction but think ALLOW_* flags are
completely internal to LSM because they can be both
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:31:50PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> This series is the result of a rather absurd amount of discussion over
> how to get SGX to play nice with LSM policies, without having to resort
> to evil shenanigans or put undue burden on userspace. The discussion
>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 11:30:54AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > From: Christopherson, Sean J
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 10:16 AM
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 12:29:35AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > > Hi Sean,
> > >
> > > Generally I agree with your direction but think ALLOW_* flags
> From: Christopherson, Sean J
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 10:16 AM
>
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 12:29:35AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > Hi Sean,
> >
> > Generally I agree with your direction but think ALLOW_* flags are
> > completely internal to LSM because they can be both produced and
> >
> From: linux-sgx-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-sgx-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Smalley
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 10:47 AM
>
> On 6/2/19 3:29 AM, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > Hi Sean,
> >
> >> From: Christopherson, Sean J
> >> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:32 PM
> >>
> >>
On 6/2/19 3:29 AM, Xing, Cedric wrote:
Hi Sean,
From: Christopherson, Sean J
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:32 PM
This series is the result of a rather absurd amount of discussion over how to
get SGX to play
nice with LSM policies, without having to resort to evil shenanigans or put
undue
On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 12:29:35AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> > From: Christopherson, Sean J
> > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:32 PM
> >
> > This series is the result of a rather absurd amount of discussion over how
> > to get SGX to play
> > nice with LSM policies, without having
Hi Sean,
> From: Christopherson, Sean J
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:32 PM
>
> This series is the result of a rather absurd amount of discussion over how to
> get SGX to play
> nice with LSM policies, without having to resort to evil shenanigans or put
> undue burden on
> userspace. The
This series is the result of a rather absurd amount of discussion over
how to get SGX to play nice with LSM policies, without having to resort
to evil shenanigans or put undue burden on userspace. The discussion
definitely wandered into completely insane territory at times, but I
think/hope we
11 matches
Mail list logo
