Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an error

Huang, Kai
2022-08-31T20:43:16Z

On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 11:35 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Jarkko, Kai and Haitao,
>
> Can you three please start trimming your replies? You don't need to and
> should not quote the entirety of your messages every time you reply.
>
> On 8/31/22 11:28, jarkko@kernel.org wrote:
> > > Will it cause racing if we expose dev nodes to user space before
> > > ksgxd is started and sensitization done?
> > I'll to explain this.
> >
> > So the point is to fix the issue at hand, and fix it locally.
> >
> > Changing initialization order is simply out of context. It's
> > not really an argument for or against changing it
> >
> > We are fixing sanitization here, and only that with zero
> > side-effects to any other semantics.
> >
> > It's dictated by the development process [*] but more
> > importantly it's also just plain common sense.
>
> Kai, I think your suggestion is reasonable. You make a good point about
> not needing ksgxd for vepc.
>
> *But*, I think it's a bit too much for a bugfix that's headed to
> -stable. I'm concerned that it will have unintended side effects,
> *especially* when there's a working, tested alternative.

Agreed. Thanks Dave/Jarkko.

--
Thanks,
-Kai