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]

Message-ID: <20180619132923.GF5609@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:29:23 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        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

On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 12:35:51PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > +#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?

Prefixing with the enclave information.

> 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?

I'll see if this could be broken down into two i.e. driver without
swapping callbacks and one for the callbacks.

/Jarkko