[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190604201232.GA7775@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:12:32 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.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>,
"dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"npmccallum@...hat.com" <npmccallum@...hat.com>,
"serge.ayoun@...el.com" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
"shay.katz-zamir@...el.com" <shay.katz-zamir@...el.com>,
"haitao.huang@...el.com" <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
"andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com"
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"kai.svahn@...el.com" <kai.svahn@...el.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"josh@...htriplett.org" <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"kai.huang@...el.com" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 15/28] x86/sgx: Add the Linux SGX Enclave Driver
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 05:26:53PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:29:24PM +0000, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> > On 2019-04-22 14:58, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > >Where do we stand on removing the ACPI and platform_driver dependencies?
> > >Can we get rid of them sooner rather than later?
> >
> > You know my position on this...
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sgx/msg00624.html . I don't really have
> > any new arguments.
> >
> > Considering the amount of planned changes for the driver post-merge, I think
> > it's crucial that the driver part can be swapped out with alternative
> > implementations.
>
> This gets far outside of my area of expertise as I think this is more of
> a policy question as opposed to a technical question, e.g. do we export
> function simply to allow out-of-tree alternatives.
>
> > >Now that the core SGX code is approaching stability, I'd like to start
> > >sending RFCs for the EPC virtualization and KVM bits to hash out that side
> > >of things. The ACPI crud is the last chunk of code that would require
> > >non-trivial changes to the core SGX code for the proposed virtualization
> > >implementation. I'd strongly prefer to get it out of the way before
> > >sending the KVM RFCs.
> >
> > What kind of changes? Wouldn't KVM just be another consumer of the same API
> > used by the driver?
>
> Nope, userspace "only" needs to be able to mmap() arbitrary chunks of EPC.
> Except for EPC management, which is already in built into the kernel, the
> EPC virtualization code has effectively zero overlap with the driver. Of
> course this is all technically speculative since none of this is upstream...
Jarkko, can you weigh in with your thoughts on the ACPI stuff?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists