From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F50C433F5 for ; Mon, 16 May 2022 02:29:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239387AbiEPC3S (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2022 22:29:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60642 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234618AbiEPC3R (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2022 22:29:17 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0EE1F5BF for ; Sun, 15 May 2022 19:29:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1652668156; x=1684204156; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TlZIhxZLLgMOFOHVVCkcJIY4Gx568dpZO99gVJNJoB8=; b=CO9Jex2D06lS3yUdluFaVUMAK4U1yv5X1zrrH8SKOYCDVGcDApOqN12P PCpkITQu9ONfj6DSiAuNk4PYrI2NdDy3HLnqevGkKv8qy1pyv3Six0sFR ROyCpLYHRtNP/LSjG2ZkwIL2BUDmEq27aK0B0+/XYrnOAB4TwJgkOiLaB AfsoAI9HLMhTPCp5Xd5oucydLQXVTd4AQWy0VS4p+FuTH1cCk1tOC93gv F1eNjPlvGZHImNT1qN2F29mxw+4a911M7tdho4sPwfPVfzKp8QtEFKxhs NH4GthDE3qEU1I2kBSB7wZwY+cawOSgc/ZfHcnxSqUh6jQ7INpcCoBq4V Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10348"; a="258281722" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,229,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="258281722" Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 May 2022 19:29:14 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,229,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="638050172" Received: from mmzhu-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO khuang2-desk.gar.corp.intel.com) ([10.254.1.156]) by fmsmga004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 May 2022 19:29:12 -0700 Message-ID: <968e75d65a37ff7ae21f84875b78fb1ebbbef33d.camel@intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/sgx: fine grained SGX MCA behavior From: Kai Huang To: Zhiquan Li , "Luck, Tony" , Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: "linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" , "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" , "Christopherson,, Sean" , "Du, Fan" Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 14:29:10 +1200 In-Reply-To: <35284def-ca7f-d42b-164f-1c49eb8977ee@intel.com> References: <20220510031646.3181306-1-zhiquan1.li@intel.com> <55ffd9475f5d46f68dd06c4323bec871@intel.com> <35284def-ca7f-d42b-164f-1c49eb8977ee@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-2.fc35) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2022-05-14 at 13:39 +0800, Zhiquan Li wrote: > On 2022/5/14 00:35, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > > Do you think the processes sharing the same enclave need to be killed, > > > > even they had not touched the EPC page with hardware error? > > > > Any ideas are welcome. > > > > > > I do not think the patch set is going to wrong direction. This discussion > > > was just missing from the cover letter. > > OK, I will add this point into v2 of cover letter and patch 03. > > I don't think you should add to patch 03. The same enclave can be shared by multiple processes is only true for host enclaves, but not virtual EPC isntance. Virtual EPC instance is just a raw EPC resource which is accessible to guest, but how enclaves are created on this EPC resource is completely upto guest. Therefore, one virtual EPC cannot be shared by two guests. -- Thanks, -Kai