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

Huang, Kai
2022-09-01T22:42:01Z

On Fri, 2022-09-02 at 01:27 +0300, jarkko@kernel.org wrote:
> 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

Yeah I am planning to work out one to see how it goes.

--
Thanks,
-Kai