linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] x86/sgx: Split SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING

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: <D3GP5ZP0ZQB0.27BP8Q6T6978H@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:29:41 +0300
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Dmitrii Kuvaiskii" <dmitrii.kuvaiskii@...el.com>
Cc: <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
 <kai.huang@...el.com>, <kailun.qin@...el.com>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
 <mona.vij@...el.com>, <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] x86/sgx: Split SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_RECLAIMED
 into two flags

On Mon Aug 12, 2024 at 11:12 AM EEST, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 01:36:08PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri Jul 5, 2024 at 10:45 AM EEST, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii wrote:
> > > SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_RECLAIMED flag is set when the enclave page is being
> > > reclaimed (moved to the backing store). This flag however has two
> > > logical meanings:
> >           ~~~~~~~~
> >         side-effects
>
> Could you clarify the required action here? Do you expect me to replace
> "This flag however has two logical meanings" with "This flag however has
> two logical side-effects"? The suggested word doesn't seem to apply nicely
> to this case. In my text, I have the following two sentences: "Don't
> attempt to load the enclave page" and "Don't attempt to remove the PCMD
> page ...". I don't think it's proper English to say that "Don't attempt
> ..." is a side effect. Or do you want me to also modify the two sentences
> in the list?

I agree with you here, you can ignore this comment.

BR, Jarkko