[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160509052917.GA20120@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 08:29:17 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jethro Beekman <kernel@...ekman.nl>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
"open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE 32-BIT AND 64-BIT" <x86@...nel.org>,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE 32-BIT AND 64-BIT"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Secure Guard eXtensions
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:22:19PM -0700, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> On 29-04-16 13:04, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> Why would you want to do that?
> >>
> >> ...
> >
> > Do you see this as a performance issue or why do you think that this
> > would hurt that much?
>
> I don't think it's a performance issue at all. I'm just giving an example of why
> you'd want to do this. I'm sure people who want to use this instruction set can
> come up with other uses, so I think the driver should support it. Other drivers
> on different platform might support this, in which case we should be compatible
> (to achieve the same enclave measurement). Other Linux drivers support it [1]. I
> would ask: why would you not want to do this? It seems trivial to expand the
> current flag into 16 separate flags; one for each 256-byte chunk in the page.
I'm fine with adding a 16-bit bitmask.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists