linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] selftests/sgx: Add SGX selftest augment_via_eaccept

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]

Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 16:11:34 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vijay Dhanraj <vijay.dhanraj@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] selftests/sgx: Add SGX selftest
 augment_via_eaccept_long

Hi Jarkko,

On 9/1/2022 3:16 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:09:02AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 8/30/2022 7:28 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:55:47PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/2022 8:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

>>>> There seems to be at least three patches merged into one here:
>>>> 1) Update SGX selftests to create enclaves with provided size dedicated
>>>>    to EDMM (this change causes a lot of noise and distracts from the test
>>>>    addition).
>>>> 2) The mrenclave_ecreate() fix (which is still incomplete).
>>>> 3) The actual test addition.
>>>
>>> I would agree on this on a kernel patch but not for kselftest patch. It
>>> does not really give useful value here. This adds a test and that is a
>>> good enough granularity in my opinion, unless some major architecture
>>> work is required as precursory. It is not the case here.
>>
>> I must say that for many good reasons this goes against one of the
>> fundamental rules of kernel patches: separate logical changes into
>> separate patches. This is your domain though so of course the work
>> within it follows your guidance and I will not pursue it further.
> 
> I don't consider kselftest patch exactly same as kernel patch

You are not alone.

> but I can split this. What would be good enough?

I identified three candidate patches in my original response that
is quoted above, but as I mentioned I understand the sentiment
and this is your domain so I will not insist on it.

Reinette