linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 10/13] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Software Guard Extensions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 8 Jun 2018 12:35:51 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, nhorman@...hat.com,
        npmccallum@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:INTEL SGX" <intel-sgx-kernel-dev@...ts.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 10/13] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Software Guard
 Extensions

> +#define sgx_pr_ratelimited(level, encl, fmt, ...)			\
> +	pr_ ## level ## _ratelimited("[%d:0x%p] " fmt,			\
> +				     pid_nr((encl)->tgid),		\
> +				     (void *)(encl)->base, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +
> +#define sgx_dbg(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(debug, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_info(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(info, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_warn(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(warn, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_err(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(err, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define sgx_crit(encl, fmt, ...) \
> +	sgx_pr_ratelimited(crit, encl, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)

I thought the pr_* thingies were to keep everyone from having to do this
in each driver.  Why did you need this?

Can you do any better than a 2,000-line patch?  For instance, could you
break out the memory management portion into its own part and have that
reviewed by mm folks?  Or the ioctl()'s by device driver folks?