RE: [RFC PATCH v5 08/26] x86/sgx: Expose SGX architectural definitions to the kernel

Huang, Kai
2021-02-18T10:19:26Z

>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 07:18:27AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 2/16/21 3:48 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > What I'm trying to point you at is, to not give some artificial
> > > reasons why the headers should be separate - artificial as the SDM
> > > says it is architectural and so on - but give a reason from software
> > > design perspective why the separation is needed: better build times,
> > > less symbols exposed to modules, blabla and so on.
> >
> > I think I actually suggested this sgx_arch.h split for SGX in the
> > first place.
> >
> > I was reading the patches and I had a really hard time separating the
> > hardware and software structures. There would be a 'struct sgx_foo {}'
> > and some chit chat about what it did... and I still had no idea if it
> > was an architectural structure or not.
> >
> > This way, it's 100% crystal clear what Linux is defining and what the
> > hardware defines from the diff context.
>
> Let's worry about split later on when we add "big" SGX specific features like
> EDMM, and consider this more like "move and rename".

If we need to worry about split when we add EDMM, why we are merging to one single asm/sgx.h in this KVM SGX series?

EDMM is a feature we definitely need to support, right?