> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021, Kai Huang wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > > > Do you think is it reasonable to move this patch to KVM? > > sgx_virt_ecreate() can be merged to handle ECREATE patch, and > > sgx_virt_einit() can be merged to handle EINIT patch. W/o the context > > of that two patches, it doesn't makes too much sense to have them > standalone under x86 here I think. And nobody except KVM will use them. > > Short answer, no. To do that, nearly all of arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encls.h > would need to be exposed via asm/sgx.h. The macro insanity and fault/error > code shenanigans really should be kept as private crud in SGX. That's the > primary motivation for putting these in sgx/virt.c instead of KVM, my changelog > just did a really poor job of explaining that. OK.
