linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/sgx: account backing 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: <3b7e79ea-18f2-afe2-be4e-401524b481f7@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 15:55:43 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-sgx@...r.kernel.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-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/sgx: account backing pages

On 1/14/22 3:52 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> I can understand your hesitation, but I agree with Dave here that
>> wrapping the function makes the code more clear. I would prefer to keep
>> this the way it is.
> What if sgx_encl_get_backing() was changed as "static inline", if the
> only motivation is encapsulation?

What would the purpose be of adding an 'inline' to the function definition?