On 4/4/2023 11:09 AM, Huang, Kai wrote:
On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 10:45 +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
On 4/4/2023 9:53 AM, Huang, Kai wrote:
On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 09:21 +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
On 4/3/2023 7:24 PM, Huang, Kai wrote:
Anyway, I will seperate this patch from the LAM KVM enabling patch. And
send a patch seperately if
needed later.
I think your change for SGX is still needed based on the pseudo code of ENCLS.
Yes, I meant I would seperate VMX part since it is not a bug after all,
SGX will still be in the patchset.
Shouldn't SGX part be also split out as a bug fix patch?
Does it have anything to do with this LAM support series?
It is related to LAM support because LAM only effective in 64-bit mode,
so the untag action should only be done in 64-bit mode.
If the SGX fix patch is not included, that means LAM untag could be
called in compatiblity mode in SGX ENCLS handler.
Yes I got this point, and your patch 6/7 depends on it.
But my point is this fix is needed anyway regardless the LAM support, and it
should be merged, for instance, asap as a bug fix (and CC stable perhaps) --
while the LAM support is a feature, and can be merged at a different time frame.
OK, I can seperate the patch.
Of course just my 2cents and this is up to maintainers.
