linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/3] selftests/x86/sgx: Fix Makefile for SGX selftest

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8bf125023ad2e99a8620112a393ca95f9939f4fd.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 13 Jul 2019 18:15:26 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Cedric Xing <cedric.xing@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     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 v4 1/3] selftests/x86/sgx: Fix Makefile for SGX
 selftest

On Sat, 2019-07-13 at 18:10 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-07-12 at 23:51 -0700, Cedric Xing wrote:
> > The original x86/sgx/Makefile didn't work when "x86/sgx" was specified as the
> > test target, nor did it work with "run_tests" as the make target. Yet another
> > problem was that it breaks 32-bit only build. This patch fixes those problems,
> > along with adjustments to compiler/linker options and simplifications to the
> > build rules.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Cedric Xing <cedric.xing@...el.com>
> 
> You must split this in quite a few separate patches:
> 
> 1. One for each fix.
> 2. At least one patch for each change in compiler and linker options with a
>    commit message clearly expalaining why the change was made.
> 3. One for each simplification.
> 
> We don't support 32-bit build:
> 
> config INTEL_SGX
> 	bool "Intel SGX core functionality"
> 	depends on X86_64 && CPU_SUP_INTEL

This is not to say that changes suck. This just in "unreviewable" state as far
as the kernel processes go...

/Jarkko