On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:21:36 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> 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. Thanks. My fault.
