On 1/6/21 4:34 PM, Kai Huang wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 09:07:13 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote: >> Does the *ABI* here preclude doing oversubscription in the future? > > I am Sorry what *ABI* do you mean? Oh boy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_binary_interface In your patch set that you are posting, /dev/sgx_virt_epc is a new interface: a new ABI. If we accept your contribution, programs will be build around and expect Linux to support this ABI. An ABI is a contract between software written to use it and the kernel. The kernel tries *really* hard to never break its contracts with applications. OK, now that we have that out of the way, I'll ask my question in another way: Your series adds some new interfaces, including /dev/sgx_virt_epc. If the kernel wants to add oversubscription in the future, will old binary application users of /dev/sgx_virt_epc be able to support oversubscription? Or, would users of /dev/sgx_virt_epc need to change to support oversubscription? >> Also, didn't we call this "Flexible Launch Control"? > > I am actually a little bit confused about all those terms here. I don't think > from spec's perspective, there's such thing "Flexible Launch Control", but I > think everyone knows what does it mean. But I am not sure whether it is > commonly used by community. > > I think using FLC is fine if we only want to mention unlocked mode. But if you > want to mention both, IMHO it would be better to specifically use LC locked > mode and unlocked mode, since technically there's third case that LC is not > present at all. Could you go over the changelogs from Jarkko's patches and at least make these consistent with those? >>> or is not present at all. The reason is the goal of SGX virtualization, or >>> virtualization in general, is to expose hardware feature to guest, but not to >>> make assumption how guest will use it. Therefore, KVM should support SGX guest >>> as long as hardware is able to, to have chance to support more potential use >>> cases in cloud environment. >> >> This is kinda long-winded and misses a lot of important context. How about: >> >> SGX hardware supports two "launch control" modes to limit which enclaves >> can run. In the "locked" mode, the hardware prevents enclaves from >> running unless they are blessed by a third party. > > or "by Intel". >From what I understand, Intel had to bless the enclaves but the architecture itself doesn't say "Intel must bless them". But, yeah, in practice, it had to be Intel. >>> - Support exposing SGX2 >>> >>> Due to the same reason above, SGX2 feature detection is added to core SGX code >>> to allow KVM to expose SGX2 to guest, even currently SGX driver doesn't support >>> SGX2, because SGX2 can work just fine in guest w/o any interaction to host SGX >>> driver. >>> >>> - Restricit SGX guest access to provisioning key >>> >>> To grant guest being able to fully use SGX, guest needs to be able to create >>> provisioning enclave. >> >> "enclave" or "enclaves"? > > I think should be "enclave", inside one VM, there should only be one > provisioning enclave. This is where the language becomes important. Is the provisioning enclave a one-shot deal? You create one per guest and can never create another? Or, can you restart it? Can you architecturally have more than one active at once? Or, can you only create one once the first one dies? You'll write that sentence differently based on the answers.
