29 ms·
> When I play minecraft I don't want it to be relegated to some sub-chip because it isn't trusted. Why not relegate the trusted stuff to a sub-chip then? (i.e.
by shawnz 8y ago
> When I play minecraft I don't want it to be relegated to some sub-chip because it isn't trusted.
Why not relegate the trusted stuff to a sub-chip then? (i.e. TPMs in desktop PCs, or iOS' "secure enclave")
- sandworm101 8y agoBecause drawing lines between trusted and non-trusted code isn't easy. Sometimes you need/want to dedicate all available processing power to a bit of trusted code (ie booting into windows). But other time you want to do the same for non-trusted (ie minecraft). Separate chips for each means you've basically halved your peak available horsepower (assuming both are of equal power). Rather than draw the line between trusted and not, I'd draw the line between security-related stuff (encryption keys) and everything else. Then the separate secure chip can be relatively small while the big chip remains available for everything else. (I say "chip" but I think it is more likely to be a separate 'core' on a chip, one with it's own cache and ram. It wouldn't need much of either.)
- shawnz 8y agoYes, I agree with you. What you are describing is exactly how the examples I gave above are designed. I didn't mean to imply that the whole OS should be considered "trusted", but rather just the security critical components.
- walterbell 8y agoSee the T2 processor in iMac Pro, rumored to be coming to Macbooks.