Re: [PATCH 0/4] selftests/sgx: Harden test enclave

[Dave Hansen]

On 7/20/23 12:12, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> On 20.07.23 19:25, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> There's a lot of source code in kselftest, which probably has at least
>> some security issues.
>>
>> I'm not sure, at least based on this motivation, why would we care?
> 
> I'd argue that, in general, code examples are often used as templates
> and may thus inherit any vulnerabilities therein. This may be especially
> relevant here as your selftest enclave is in my knowledge the only
> available truly minimal SGX enclave that can be built and extended while
> only relying on standard tools and no heavy frameworks like the Intel
> SGX SDK. Thus, as noted before on this mailing list, it may be an
> attractive start for people who want to build things from scratch.
> 
> IMHO the example enclave should do a best effort to reasonably follow
> SGX coding best practices and not have _known_ security vulnerabilities
> in it.

On the other hand, if we don't leave glaring, known "security"
vulnerabilities in it, even more people will be fooled into trying to
use our example code for something that needs actual security.

I personally don't know the first thing about writing a secure enclave.
I just know it's _really_ hard and I honestly don't expect someone to do
it without the help of the SDK.