On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 19:00:48 +0100 Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 27/01/21 02:25, Kai Huang wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:04:35 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote: > >> On 1/26/21 1:30 AM, Kai Huang wrote: > >>> From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Encapsulate the snippet in sgx_free_epc_page() concerning EREMOVE to > >>> sgx_reset_epc_page(), which is a static helper function for > >>> sgx_encl_release(). It's the only function existing, which deals with > >>> initialized pages. > >> > >> Yikes. I have no idea what that is saying. Here's a rewrite: > >> > >> EREMOVE takes a pages and removes any association between that page and > >> an enclave. It must be run on a page before it can be added into > >> another enclave. Currently, EREMOVE is run as part of pages being freed > >> into the SGX page allocator. It is not expected to fail. > >> > >> KVM does not track how guest pages are used, which means that SGX > >> virtualization use of EREMOVE might fail. > >> > >> Break out the EREMOVE call from the SGX page allocator. This will allow > >> the SGX virtualization code to use the allocator directly. (SGX/KVM > >> will also introduce a more permissive EREMOVE helper). > > > > Thanks. > > > > Hi Jarkko, > > > > Do you want me to update your patch directly, or do you want to take the > > change, and send me the patch again? > > I think you should treat all these 27 patches as yours now (including > removing them, reordering them, adjusting commit message etc.). Agreed. Thank you Paolo for starting to review this series :)
