[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190927161145.GM10545@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 19:11:45 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com, serge.ayoun@...el.com,
shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
kai.svahn@...el.com, josh@...htriplett.org, luto@...nel.org,
kai.huang@...el.com, rientjes@...gle.com, cedric.xing@...el.com,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Haim Cohen <haim.cohen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 02/24] x86/cpufeatures: x86/msr: Intel SGX Launch
Control hardware bits
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:18:24AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I wouldn't be too surprised if this happened. BIOS is very inventive.
>
> Given the number of steps BIOS needs to take to enable SGX, that'd be one
> "inventive" BIOS. :-)
>
> Anyways, adding logic to opportunistically set FEATURE_CONTROL during boot
> should be trivial. I'll prep a patch and send it separately from the SGX
> series, moving the existing KVM code would be a good change irrespective
> of SGX.
Also, based on Borislav's remarks, the commit message should be more
clear about launch control (separately describe the driver and KVM
use). I can rework that.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists