[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181218131853.GC25667@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 15:18:53 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com,
npmccallum@...hat.com, "Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
shay.katz-zamir@...el.com,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, mark.shanahan@...el.com,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 18/23] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 08:55:02PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 5:39 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:20:48PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > The only potential hiccup I can see is the build flow. Currently,
> > > EADD+EEXTEND is done via a work queue to avoid major performance issues
> > > (10x regression) when userspace is building multiple enclaves in parallel
> > > using goroutines to wrap Cgo (the issue might apply to any M:N scheduler,
> > > but I've only confirmed the Golang case). The issue is that allocating
> > > an EPC page acts like a blocking syscall when the EPC is under pressure,
> > > i.e. an EPC page isn't immediately available. This causes Go's scheduler
> > > to thrash and tank performance[1].
> >
> > I don't see any major issues having that kthread. All the code that
> > maps the enclave would be removed.
> >
> > I would only allow to map enclave to process address space after the
> > enclave has been initialized i.e. SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_ATTACH.
> >
>
> What's SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_ATTACH? Why would it be needed at all? I
> would imagine that all pages would be faulted in as needed (or
> prefaulted as an optimization) and the enclave would just work in any
> process.
The way I see it the efficient way to implement this is to have the
enclave attached to a single process address space at a time.
#PF handler is trivial with multiple address spaces but swapping is
a bit tedious as you would need to zap N processes.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists