Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] x86/sgx: Rename the owner field of struct sgx_epc_page as encl_owner

[Zhiquan Li <zhiquan1.li@intel.com>]

On 2022/9/1 11:36, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-09-01 at 08:35 +0800, Zhiquan Li wrote:
>> In order to avoid unnecessary casting, rename the 'owner' field of
>> struct sgx_epc_page as 'encl_owner', and update all of references.
> This changelog itself doesn't explain _why_ renaming 'owner' to 'encl_owner' can
> avoid the explicit castg.  In fact, the reason is that you will use a 'union'
> to separate the use of 'owner' of the EPC page (between SGX driver and virtual
> EPC).  The rename is just to make the name more clear, but cannot really avoid
> casting.
> 
> So I think there should be more sentences to explain here, such as "in order to
> send SIGBUS to userspace hypervisor to allow it to inject #MC to guest, use
> virtual EPC page's owner to be the userspace virtual address of the EPC page",
> and after those you can say something like "in order to avoid casting, use a
> union to separate the use of owner for SGX driver EPC page and virtual EPC page.
> And rename owner of SGX driver EPC page to 'encl_owner' to be more specific",
> etc.
> 
> That being said, I guess you can just merge this patch with your second patch,
> which actually introduces the 'union' and uses the owner for virtual EPC page.
> And in changelog you explain everything above to justify the patch.
> 
> Does this make sense?
> 

Many thanks for your excellent explanation, I would like to add it into
the commit message of this patch but keep it separately.  IMHO, this
will benefit cherry-pick the subsequent patch to stable tree if it bases
on the new 'encl_owner' field but no related to this MCA fix. In such
case just cherry-pick patch 01 and the critical fix patch is enough,
patch 02 and 03 can be ignored.  What do you think?

Furthermore, I would like to add your “Acked-by” to this patch, is that
OK for you?

Thanks and Best Regards,
Zhiquan