Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Declare sgx_set_attribute() for !CONFIG_X86_SGX

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>]

On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 18:58 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 15:29 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Simplify sgx_set_attribute() usage by declaring a fallback
> > > implementation for it rather than requiring to have compilation
> > > flag checks in the call site. The fallback unconditionally returns
> > > -EINVAL.
> > > 
> > > Refactor the call site in kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap() accordingly.
> > > The net result is the same: KVM_CAP_SGX_ATTRIBUTE causes -EINVAL
> > > when kernel is compiled without CONFIG_X86_SGX_KVM.
> > 
> > Eh, it doesn't really simplify the usage.  If anything it makes it more convoluted
> > because the capability check in kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension() still needs an
> > #ifdef, e.g. readers will wonder why the check is conditional but the usage is not.
> 
> It does objectively a bit, since it's one ifdef less.
> 
> This is fairly standard practice to do in kernel APIs, used in countless
> places, for instance in Tony's patch set to add MCE recovery for SGX. And
> it would be nice to share common pattern here how we define API now and
> futre.
> 
> I also remarked that declaration of "sgx_provisioning_allowed" is not flagged,
> which is IMHO even more convolved because without SGX it is spare data.

This should have had RFC tho (my bad forgot --subject-prefix="PATCH
RFC"), given that this makes less sense alone than within context of
patch set. I get that like this it's not worth of applying even if
it makes sense as a change.

I prefer sending patches, rather than attaching patches to responses,
because:

1. They get a lore.kernel.org link.
2. Can be fluently applied to other patch sets with b4:
   https://people.kernel.org/monsieuricon/introducing-4-and-patch-attestation
3. They get a patchwork link.

Attachments are not as nice objects to manage as distinct emails.

/Jarkko