[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190710224628.epjxwlpqqxdurmzo@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 01:46:28 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, serge.ayoun@...el.com,
shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
kai.svahn@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] An alternative __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() to
allow enclave/host parameter passing using untrusted stack
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:08:37AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > With these conclusions I think the current vDSO API is sufficient for
> > Linux.
>
> The new vDSO API is to support data exchange on stack. It has nothing to do
> with debugging. BTW, the community has closed on this.
And how that is useful?
> The CFI directives are for stack unwinding. They don't affect what the code
> does so you can just treat them as NOPs if you don't understand what they
> do. However, they are useful to not only debuggers but also exception
> handling code. libunwind also has a setjmp()/longjmp() implementation based
> on CFI directives.
Of course I won't merge code of which usefulness I don't understand.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists