Re: [PATCH v5 12/18] x86/sgx: Add EPC OOM path to forcefully reclaim EPC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 14:13:22 -0500, Michal Koutný <mkoutny@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 08:54:48PM +0200, Michal Koutný <mkoutny@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is this distinction between preemptability of EPC pages mandated by the
HW implementation? (host/"process" enclaves vs VM enclaves) Or do have
users an option to lock certain pages in memory that yields this
difference?

(After skimming Documentation/arch/x86/sgx.rst, Section "Virtual EPC")

Or would these two types warrant also two types of miscresource? (To
deal with each in own way.)

They are from the same bucket of HW resource so I think it's more suitable to be one resource type. Otherwise need to policy to dividing the capacity, etc. And it is still possible in future vEPC become reclaimable.

My current thinking is we probably can get away with non-preemptive max_write for enclaves too. See my other reply.

Thanks
Haitao




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux