On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 23:49 -0500, Haitao Huang wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:28:36 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 20:06 -0700, Haitao Huang wrote: > > > Use the lower 3 bits in the flags field of sgx_epc_page struct to > > > track EPC states in its life cycle and define an enum for possible > > > states. More state(s) will be added later. > > > > This patch does more than what the changelog claims to do. AFAICT it > > does > > below: > > > > 1) Use the lower 3 bits to track EPC page status > > 2) Rename SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMER_TRACKED to SGX_EPC_PAGE_RERCLAIMABLE > > 3) Introduce a new state SGX_EPC_PAGE_UNRECLAIMABLE > > 4) Track SECS and VA pages as SGX_EPC_PAGE_UNRECLAIMABLE > > > > The changelog only says 1) IIUC. > > > I don't quite get why you would view 3) as a separate item from 1). 1) is about using some method to track EPC page status, 3) is adding a new state. Why cannot they be separated? > In my view, 4) is not done as long as there is not separate list to track > it. You are literally doing below: @@ -113,6 +113,9 @@ static int sgx_encl_create(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct sgx_secs *secs) encl->attributes = secs->attributes; encl->attributes_mask = SGX_ATTR_UNPRIV_MASK; + sgx_record_epc_page(encl->secs.epc_page, + SGX_EPC_PAGE_UNRECLAIMABLE); + Which obviously is tracking SECS as unreclaimable page here. The only thing you are not doing now is to put to the actual list, which you introduced in a later patch. But why not just doing them together?
