[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <925629af-8cb3-c3c7-35ca-52d30beb984d@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:19:23 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc: dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
luto@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, seanjc@...gle.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
cathy.zhang@...el.com, cedric.xing@...el.com,
haitao.huang@...el.com, mark.shanahan@...el.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/25] x86/sgx: Support enclave page permission changes
On 12/4/21 3:08 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> Enclave page permission changes need to be approached with care and
>> for this reason this initial support is to allow enclave page
>> permission changes _only_ if the new permissions are the same or
>> more restrictive that the permissions originally vetted at the time the
>> pages were added to the enclave. Support for extending enclave page
>> permissions beyond what was originally vetted is deferred.
> This paragraph is out-of-scope for a commit message. You could have
> this in the cover letter but not here. I would just remove it.
This does convey valuable information, though. It tells the reader that
this is a sub-optimal implementation. It also acknowledges that there
is further work to do. Maybe saying that it is "deferred" is not quite
the verbiage I would use, but the concept is fine.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists