[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <85EE19AF-C085-4E17-A673-44242996AF75@amacapital.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:50:08 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
"Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] x86/vdso: Add __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() to wrap SGX enclave transitions
> On Dec 7, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/7/18 10:15 AM, Jethro Beekman wrote:
>> This is not sufficient to support the Fortanix SGX ABI calling
>> convention, which was designed to be mostly compatible with the SysV
>> 64-bit calling convention. The following registers need to be passed in
>> to an enclave from userspace: RDI, RSI, RDX, R8, R9, R10. The following
>> registers need to be passed out from an enclave to userspace: RDI, RSI,
>> RDX, R8, R9.
>
> Are you asking nicely to change the new Linux ABI to be consistent with
> your existing ABI? Or, are you saying that the new ABI *must* be
> compatible with this previous out-of-tree implementation?
I think that allowing the enclave to return at least a few registers is quite reasonable, but I don’t have a strong opinion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists