Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> On 2019-04-19 14:31, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I do think we need to follow LSM rules.  But my bigger point is that
> > there are policies that donât allow JIT at all. I think we should
> > arrange the SGX API so itâs still usable when such a policy is in
> > effect.

> I don't think we need to arrange that right now. This patch set needs to
> be merged after more than 2 years of development. I'd like to avoid

We merge stuff when it is ready and not when someone declares that it needs
to be merged.

> introducing any more big changes. Let's just do what I described to make
> LSM not broken, which is a minimal change to the current approach. We
> can adjust the API later to support the use case you describe.

You are working around LSM nothing else and that's just not going to fly.

Thanks,

	tglx