On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:29:17AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:22:19PM -0700, Jethro Beekman wrote: > > On 29-04-16 13:04, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > >>> Why would you want to do that? > > >> > > >> ... > > > > > > Do you see this as a performance issue or why do you think that this > > > would hurt that much? > > > > I don't think it's a performance issue at all. I'm just giving an example of why > > you'd want to do this. I'm sure people who want to use this instruction set can > > come up with other uses, so I think the driver should support it. Other drivers > > on different platform might support this, in which case we should be compatible > > (to achieve the same enclave measurement). Other Linux drivers support it [1]. I > > would ask: why would you not want to do this? It seems trivial to expand the > > current flag into 16 separate flags; one for each 256-byte chunk in the page. > > I'm fine with adding a 16-bit bitmask. I did some experiementation and since this doesn't make the API more complicated it is probably ok. Field that I declared was: __u16 mrmask; Measure one page: add_page.mrmask = ~0; Skip the measurement: add_page.mrmask = 0: /Jarkko _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
