linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/2] x86: sgx_vepc: implement ioctl to EREMOVE all pages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1afa3ed3-d77b-163d-e35e-30bf4f5d3a9e@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:07:10 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/2] x86: sgx_vepc: implement ioctl to EREMOVE all
 pages

On 14/09/21 18:42, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> Let's wait for this patch to be accepted first.  I'll wait a little more
>> for Jarkko and Dave to comment on this, and include your "Tested-by".
>>
>> I will also add cond_resched() on the final submission.
> Why these would be conflicting tasks? I.e. why could not QEMU use
> what is available now and move forward using better mechanism, when
> they are available?

The implementation using close/open is quite ugly (destroying and 
recreating the memory block breaks a few levels of abstractions), so 
it's not really something I'd like to commit.

Paolo