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

jarkko
2022-09-01T22:29:43Z

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:42:59PM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> 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.

Please do a patch. It's a very reasonable suggestion when
considered out of context of this bug.

If you go really rigid with this, the compilation process
should not compile in sanitization process in the case when
only vepc is enabled. It's useless functionality in that
case.

BR, Jarkko