Re: [RFC PATCH v3 05/27] x86/sgx: Add SGX_CHILD_PRESENT hardware error code

Kai Huang
2021-01-27T07:06:15Z

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:21:36 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/26/21 4:00 PM, Kai Huang wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 07:49 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 1/26/21 1:30 AM, Kai Huang wrote:
> >>> From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> SGX virtualization requires to allocate "raw" EPC and use it as "virtual
> >>> EPC" for SGX guest. Unlike EPC used by SGX driver, virtual EPC doesn't
> >>> track how EPC pages are used in VM, e.g. (de)construction of enclaves,
> >>> so it cannot guarantee EREMOVE success, e.g. it doesn't have a priori
> >>> knowledge of which pages are SECS with non-zero child counts.
> >>
> >> The grammar there is a bit questionable in spots. Here's a rewrite:
> >>
> >> SGX can accurately track how bare-metal enclave pages are used. This
> >> enables SECS to be specifically targeted and EREMOVE'd only after all
> >> child pages have been EREMOVE'd. This ensures that bare-metal SGX will
> >> never encounter SGX_CHILD_PRESENT in normal operation.
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > "SGX driver can accurate track how enclave pages are used. This enables..."
> >
> > Since in another email, you mentioned that we should get rid of bare-metal driver,
> > and Andy suggested we can just use SGX driver?
>
> <sigh>
>
> Sure, but with correct grammar, please.
>
> "SGX driver can accurately track how enclave pages are used. This
> enables..."
>
> Seriously, if you just paste the sentences into Word, it will highlight
> this and tell you.

Thanks. My fault.