[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXqb3CHefN-RLudC61jwdbLFS8cXuS4V5OJ6HTuf_arYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:59:30 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"npmccallum@...hat.com" <npmccallum@...hat.com>,
"Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
"Katz-zamir, Shay" <shay.katz-zamir@...el.com>,
"Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
"andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com"
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"josh@...htriplett.org" <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
"Dr . Greg Wettstein" <greg@...ellic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19,RESEND 24/27] x86/vdso: Add __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave()
to wrap SGX enclave transitions
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:03 AM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 01:59:48AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > As said in my previous email, this vDSO API isn't even compliant to
> > x86_64 ABI and is absolutely NOT for average developers. Instead,
> > host/enclave communications are expected to be handled by SDKs and
> > those developers will be very aware of the limitations of their targeted
> > environments, and will need the freedom to deploy optimal solutions.
> I fully realize that the above approach saddles Cedric and the SDK team
> with the extra task of justifying the need for two vDSO interfaces, and
> likely reduces the probability of their proposal being accepted. But, we
> don't *force* the SDK to be rewritten, and we gain a vDSO interface that
> many people want and is acceptable to the maintainers (unless I've
> horribly misread Andy's position).
I don't think you've horribly misread it. I would like to keep the
stuff in the vDSO as minimal as possible. If we need to add a fancier
interface down the line, then that's fine.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists