[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <afec507a-48cd-a730-586a-b9135cc66315@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:40:34 -0700
From: "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>
To: Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
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, Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
"Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, bp@...en8.de,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, luto@...nel.org,
kai.huang@...el.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
Harald Hoyer <harald@...hat.com>,
Lily Sturmann <lsturman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v28 21/22] x86/vdso: Implement a vDSO for Intel SGX
enclave call
Hi Nathaniel,
I reread your email today and thought I might have misunderstood your
email earlier. What changes are you asking for exactly? Is that just
passing @leaf in %ecx rather than in %eax? If so, I wouldn't have any
problem. I agree with you that the resulted API would then be callable
from C, even though it wouldn't be able to return back to C due to
tampered %rbx. But I think the vDSO API can preserve %rbx too, given it
is used by both EENTER and EEXIT (so is unavailable for parameter
passing anyway). Alternatively, the C caller can setjmp() to be
longjmp()'d back from within the exit handler.
-Cedric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists