Re: [RFC PATCH v4 04/26] x86/sgx: Add SGX_CHILD_PRESENT hardware error code

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

 



On Tue, Feb 09, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/9/21 8:48 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 2/8/21 2:54 AM, Kai Huang wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Add SGX_CHILD_PRESENT for use by SGX virtualization to assert EREMOVE
> >>> failures are expected, but only due to SGX_CHILD_PRESENT.
> >> This paragraph broke my brain when I read it.  How about:
> >>
> >> 	Add a definition of SGX_CHILD_PRESENT.  It will be used
> >> 	exclusively by the SGX virtualization driver to suppress EREMOVE
> >> 	warnings.
> > Maybe worth clarifying that the driver isn't suppressing warnings willy-nilly?
> > And the error code isn't about suppressing warnings, it's about identifying the
> > expected EREMOVE failure scenario.  The patch that creates the separate helper
> > for doing EREMOVE without the WARN is what provides the suppression mechanism.
> > 
> > Something like this?
> > 
> >   Add a definition of SGX_CHILD_PRESENT.  It will be used exclusively by
> >   the SGX virtualization driver to handle recoverable EREMOVE errors when
> >   saniziting EPC pages after they are reclaimed from a guest.
> 
> Looks great to me.  One nit: to a me, "reclaim" is different than
> "free".  Reclaim is a specific operation where a page is taken from one
> user and reclaimed for other use.  "Free" is the more general case
> (which includes reclaim) when a physical page is no longer being used
> (because the user is done *or* had the page reclaimed) and may be either
> used by someone else or put in a free pool.
> 
> I *think* this is actually a "free" operation, rather than a "reclaim".
>  IIRC, this code gets used at munmap().

It does.  I used reclaim because userspace, which does the freeing from this
code's perspective, never touches the EPC pages.  The SGX_CHILD_PRESENT case is
handling the scenario where userspace has for all intents and purposed reclaimed
the EPC from a guest.  If the guest cleanly tears down its enclaves, EREMOVE
will not fail.

"free" is probably better though, the above is far from obvious and still not
guaranteed to be a true reclaim scenario.  If using "freed", drop the "from a
guest" part.



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux