linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v5 1/5] x86/sgx: Introduce a counter to count the sgx_(vepc

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: <DM8PR11MB57509F762DA67BE80165103CE79CA@DM8PR11MB5750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 11:43:36 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "Scarlata,
 Vincent R" <vincent.r.scarlata@...el.com>, "Raynor, Scott"
	<scott.raynor@...el.com>, "Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Mallick, Asit
 K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>, "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, "Cai,
 Chong" <chongc@...gle.com>, "bondarn@...gle.com" <bondarn@...gle.com>,
	"jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>, "dionnaglaze@...gle.com"
	<dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 1/5] x86/sgx: Introduce a counter to count the
 sgx_(vepc_)open()

> On Mon, 2025-05-19 at 10:47 +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > +/* Counter to count the active SGX users */
> > > +static atomic64_t sgx_usage_count;
> > > +
> > > +int sgx_inc_usage_count(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	atomic64_inc(&sgx_usage_count);
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > What's the purpose of the returning int?  Seems no caller uses the return
> value.
> 
> I saw your last patch uses the returning value.  Perhaps add a sentence to
> mention in the changelog, otherwise it's kinda out of blue.

Yes, I can add a comment. I didn’t want to change the function definition.