3 ms·
SGX seems to have pivoted from DRM use cases (in consumer CPUs) to confidential computing (in server CPUs) [0]. Is that so? Or is the Intel server product line
by zimmerfrei 5y ago
SGX seems to have pivoted from DRM use cases (in consumer CPUs) to confidential computing (in server CPUs) [0]. Is that so? Or is the Intel server product line just lagging behind and it will be removed from those too? Will Intel replace it fully with something like AMD SEV?
As a technology, SGX became interesting the moment Intel added the ability for anybody to launch enclaves (and not only the anointed companies that signed NDAs with Intel) and especially when support for it landed in Linux.
Assuming Intel somehow manages to fix its security problem to a decent level, is SGX as a technology worth learning still?
[0] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security/confidential-computing.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security/confidentia...
- hansendc 5y agoI sure hope it stays around in servers for a long time. Some of us at Intel are actively working on expanding the existing kernel support: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1638381245.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1638381245.git.reinette.c... Intel's equivalent of SEV-ES and SEV-SNP is called TDX: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/intel-trust-domain-extensions.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t... . While you could probably put both under the "confidential computing" umbrella, they do really different things well. As far as I know, SGX and TDX will both be around on the same hardware. Also, just to be explicit about it: I work on Linux at Intel, including on SGX.