[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180904152605.GA8344@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 18:26:05 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org"
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"suresh.b.siddha@...el.com" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"npmccallum@...hat.com" <npmccallum@...hat.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 10/13] x86/sgx: Add sgx_einit() for initializing
enclaves
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 11:45:14PM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> But INVALID_TOKEN is not only returned when MSRs are mismatched, so do
> you plan to check to rule out other cases that cause INVALID_TOKEN
> before retrying EINIT, or unconditionally retry EINIT? And we should
> only retry once?
In the case of this error we will do wrmsrs and retry einit once.
This is how I understood it at least.
Q: Do we have to care about VMM sleep anyway? I mean if VMM always traps
EINIT it can write the MSRs with guest values if it has been sleeping.
If the answer is no, then retrying once should be a complete solution
and we don't need pm_cnt.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists