[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200924204022.GE108958@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:40:22 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
asapek@...gle.com, cedric.xing@...el.com, chenalexchen@...gle.com,
conradparker@...gle.com, cyhanish@...gle.com,
dave.hansen@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, kai.huang@...el.com, kai.svahn@...el.com,
kmoy@...gle.com, ludloff@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org,
nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com, puiterwijk@...hat.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, yaozhangx@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v38 17/24] x86/sgx: ptrace() support for the SGX driver'
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:39:07PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:57:51PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:51:28PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:17:33PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > > Add 'access' implementation to vm_ops with the help of these functions.
> > > >
> > > > "Add an ->access virtual MM function for accessing the enclave's memory... "
> > >
> > > Thank you. I wrote the last paragraph like this:
> > >
> > > "Add an '->access' virtual function for accessing the enclave's memory
> > > to vm_ops by using these functions. This allows to use ptrace() with
> >
> > "to vm_ops" must come after "function".
> >
> > But lemme ask what is "vm_ops"?
>
> I assume this is a rethorical question and I notice what I suggested
> looks as bad as my earlier commit message :-)
>
> So, I gave it some thought that and decided to "open code" the paragraph
> as
>
> "Add sgx_vma_access() function that implements 'access' virtual function
> of struct vm_operations_struct. Use formentioned leaf instructions to
> achieve read and write primitives for the enclave memory."
>
> I think this starts to have the right balance and is understandable.
>
> Still open for futher suggestion of course.
I'm not sure if I said it already but I also added cc to linux-mm (same
CC's in the patch as with mprotect callback commit). This should also
have mm ack I think.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists