On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:12:22PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > On 9/1/2022 3:22 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 01:07:35PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > >> On 8/31/2022 10:38 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > ... > > >>> tools/testing/selftests/sgx/load.c | 5 +- > >>> tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.c | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > >>> tools/testing/selftests/sgx/main.h | 3 +- > >> > >> Is this test passing on your system? This version is missing the change to > >> mrenclave_ecreate() that causes SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_INIT to fail when I try it out. > > > > I *did* get a pass in my test machine. Hmm... I'll check if > > the kernel tree was out-of-sync, which could be the reason. > > > > I do not compile kernel on that machine but have the kernel > > tree for running selftests. So there is a possiblity for > > a human error. Thanks for pointing this out. > > On my system I encounter the failure below (V1 of this series > did not have this problem): > > [SNIP] > ok 11 enclave.augment_via_eaccept > # RUN enclave.augment_via_eaccept_long ... > SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_INIT failed: Operation not permitted > # main.c:236:augment_via_eaccept_long:0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000002000 0x03 > # main.c:236:augment_via_eaccept_long:0x0000000000002000 0x0000000000001000 0x05 > # main.c:236:augment_via_eaccept_long:0x0000000000003000 0x0000000000006000 0x03 > # main.c:236:augment_via_eaccept_long:0x0000000000009000 0x0000000000001000 0x03 > # main.c:251:augment_via_eaccept_long:Failed to initialize the test enclave. > # main.c:1260:augment_via_eaccept_long:Expected 0 (0) != setup_test_encl(ENCL_HEAP_SIZE_DEFAULT, &self->encl, _metadata, EDMM_SIZE_LONG) (0) > # augment_via_eaccept_long: Test terminated by assertion > # FAIL enclave.augment_via_eaccept_long > not ok 12 enclave.augment_via_eaccept_long > [SNIP] > > ... > > >>> > >>> static const uint64_t MAGIC = 0x1122334455667788ULL; > >>> static const uint64_t MAGIC2 = 0x8877665544332211ULL; > >>> +/* Message-ID: <DM8PR11MB55912A7F47A84EC9913A6352F6999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> */ > >>> +static const uint64_t EDMM_SIZE_LONG = 8L * 1024L * 1024L * 1024L; > >>> +static const uint64_t TIMEOUT_LONG = 900; /* seconds */ > >>> + > >> > >> Apologies if my feedback was vague - I actually think that the comments in V1 added > >> valuable information, it was just the variation in formatting that was distracting. > > > > IMHO message ID is pretty good reference. Can you > > propose how would you redo it to minimize the number > > of iterations in the series? > > The message ID is a good reference but it points to an email thread > and as used here it is unclear what part of that thread is referred to. > What you had in V1 was very helpful so it could be: > > /* > * The size was chosen based on a bug report: > * Message-ID: <DM8PR11MB55912A7F47A84EC9913A6352F6999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > */ > > I am not sure about Message-ID vs url. The latter may be more > convenient since the user needs to first search which inbox the message-ID belongs > to before the message can be accessed. Not a big deal though so I think > either works. This is definitely better, I'll use it. Thanks. > > Reinette BR, Jarkko
