linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 09/12] x86/sgx: Restructure top-level EPC reclaim function

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: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 08:37:35 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
 "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, "jarkko@...nel.org"
 <jarkko@...nel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
 "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
 "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
 "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "mkoutny@...e.com" <mkoutny@...e.com>,
 "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: "mikko.ylinen@...ux.intel.com" <mikko.ylinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Zhang, Bo" <zhanb@...rosoft.com>,
 "kristen@...ux.intel.com" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "anakrish@...rosoft.com" <anakrish@...rosoft.com>,
 "sean.j.christopherson@...el.com" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
 "Li, Zhiquan1" <zhiquan1.li@...el.com>,
 "yangjie@...rosoft.com" <yangjie@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 09/12] x86/sgx: Restructure top-level EPC reclaim
 function

On 12/18/23 13:24, Haitao Huang wrote:> @Dave and @Michal, Your
thoughts? Or could you confirm we should not
> do reclaim per cgroup at all?
What's the benefit of doing reclaim per cgroup?  Is that worth the extra
complexity?

The key question here is whether we want the SGX VM to be complex and
more like the real VM or simple when a cgroup hits its limit.  Right?

If stopping at patch 5 and having less code is even remotely an option,
why not do _that_?