[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f94e05f7-e6d0-9253-d74c-09cd200702af@fortanix.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:38:19 +0200
From: Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Raoul Strackx <raoul.strackx@...tanix.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/3] x86/sgx: eextend ioctl
On 2021-04-01 20:40, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/1/21 10:49 AM, Raoul Strackx wrote:
>> On 4/1/21 6:11 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 4/1/21 7:56 AM, Raoul Strackx wrote:
>>>> SOLUTION OF THIS PATCH
>>>> This patch adds a new ioctl to enable userspace to execute EEXTEND leaf
>>>> functions per 256 bytes of enclave memory. This enables enclaves to be
>>>> build as specified by enclave providers.
>>> I think tying the user ABI to the SGX architecture this closely is a
>>> mistake.
>>>
>>> Do we need another ioctl() or can we just relax the existing add_pages
>>> ioctl() to allow unaligned addresses?
>>>
>> I've considered this. In order to do an EEXTEND without an EADD, we'd
>> need to add a flag DONT_ADD_PAGES flag to `add_pages` ioctl as well. Two
>> separate ioctls, one for adding, another for extending made more sense
>> to me.
>
> So, we're talking here about pages that have been EEADDED, but for which
> we do not want to include the entire contents of the page? Do these
> contents always include the beginning of the page, or can the holes be
> anywhere?
Holes can be anywhere, and EEXTEND calls need not be sequential in memory address or even relate to the most recently EADDed page.
--
Jethro Beekman | Fortanix
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4490 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists