[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181106054911.GA15575@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 07:49:11 +0200
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,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com, serge.ayoun@...el.com,
shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
mark.shanahan@...el.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 23/23] x86/sgx: Driver documentation
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:27:11PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> The ABI seems entirely undocumented and rather lightly designed, which
> seems like something we should fix before this is merged.
ABI is documented in arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sgx.h that from which the
documentation is included to intel_sgx.rst. I'm not saying that there is
no space refine it but it is neither undocumented.
> Also, for a feature as massive and complicated as this one, it seems
> irresponsible to not have a selftest. Is that not feasible for some reason?
I do have the in-kernel launch enclave stuff backed up here:
https://github.com/jsakkine-intel/sgx-le-host
https://github.com/jsakkine-intel/sgx-le
This is about as simple as it gets without any type of run-time.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists