[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YE0M/VoETPw7YZIy@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 21:05:33 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
haitao.huang@...el.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/25] x86/sgx: Initialize virtual EPC driver even
when SGX driver is disabled
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 01:44:58PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021, Kai Huang wrote:
> > Modify sgx_init() to always try to initialize the virtual EPC driver,
> > even if the SGX driver is disabled. The SGX driver might be disabled
> > if SGX Launch Control is in locked mode, or not supported in the
> > hardware at all. This allows (non-Linux) guests that support non-LC
> > configurations to use SGX.
> >
> > Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > index 44fe91a5bfb3..8c922e68274d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
> > @@ -712,7 +712,15 @@ static int __init sgx_init(void)
> > goto err_page_cache;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = sgx_drv_init();
> > + /*
> > + * Always try to initialize the native *and* KVM drivers.
> > + * The KVM driver is less picky than the native one and
> > + * can function if the native one is not supported on the
> > + * current system or fails to initialize.
> > + *
> > + * Error out only if both fail to initialize.
> > + */
> > + ret = !!sgx_drv_init() & !!sgx_vepc_init();
>
> I love this code.
>
> Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
I'm still wondering why this code let's go through when sgx_drv_init()
succeeds and sgx_vepc_init() fails.
The inline comment explains only the mirrored case (which does make
sense).
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists