linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH v9 08/15] x86/sgx: Implement EPC reclamation flows for cgroup

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: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 20:09:21 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "mkoutny@...e.com" <mkoutny@...e.com>
CC: "Zhang, Bo" <zhanb@...rosoft.com>, "chrisyan@...rosoft.com"
	<chrisyan@...rosoft.com>, "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>, "cgroups@...r.kernel.org"
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, "yangjie@...rosoft.com" <yangjie@...rosoft.com>,
	"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com" <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>, "Li, Zhiquan1"
	<zhiquan1.li@...el.com>, "tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com"
	<tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "anakrish@...rosoft.com"
	<anakrish@...rosoft.com>, "jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "mikko.ylinen@...ux.intel.com"
	<mikko.ylinen@...ux.intel.com>, "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
	"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"kristen@...ux.intel.com" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v9 08/15] x86/sgx: Implement EPC reclamation flows for
 cgroup

On Tue, 2024-02-20 at 14:18 +0100, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:52:39AM +0000, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> > I am not sure, but is it possible or legal for an ancestor to have less limit
> > than children?
> 
> Why not?
> It is desired for proper hiearchical delegation and the tightest limit
> of ancestors applies (cf memory.max).
> 

OK.  Thanks for the info.