[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aBI-xQzatja2Y9dh@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:16:21 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
"Scarlata, Vincent R" <vincent.r.scarlata@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
"Cai, Chong" <chongc@...gle.com>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bondarn@...gle.com" <bondarn@...gle.com>,
"dionnaglaze@...gle.com" <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
"Raynor, Scott" <scott.raynor@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/sgx: Implement EUPDATESVN and
opportunistically call it during first EPC page alloc
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 06:53:32AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> 2. Switch to Sean's approach to execute EUPDATESVN during the sgx_open().
> Btw, Sean do you agree that we don't gain much doing it second time during
> release() given the microcode flow?
> I would rather leave only one invocation of eupdatesvn during sgx_inc_usage_count().
>
> Proc: No new uABI. More predictable on svn change compared to option 1.
> Cons: Two explicit paths to hook: sgx_open() and sgx_vepc_open().
Why this is a con?
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists