[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191008133144.GA14020@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 06:31:44 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 09/24] x86/sgx: Add functions to allocate and free
EPC pages
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:09:31AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:50:11AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > The caller is responsible for ensuring EREMOVE can be safely executed,
> > e.g. by holding the enclave's lock.
>
> lockdep_assert_held() here maybe?
There are a few flows where a page can be removed without holding a lock,
e.g. when the enclave is being released, and for Version Array (VA) pages,
which are not associated with a single enclave. We could probably force
a lockdep assert with an extra parameter, but I'm not sure that'd be a net
positive.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists