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

Dave Hansen
2021-01-27T02:49:12Z

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.