On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:03 AM Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 01:59:48AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote: > > As said in my previous email, this vDSO API isn't even compliant to > > x86_64 ABI and is absolutely NOT for average developers. Instead, > > host/enclave communications are expected to be handled by SDKs and > > those developers will be very aware of the limitations of their targeted > > environments, and will need the freedom to deploy optimal solutions. > I fully realize that the above approach saddles Cedric and the SDK team > with the extra task of justifying the need for two vDSO interfaces, and > likely reduces the probability of their proposal being accepted. But, we > don't *force* the SDK to be rewritten, and we gain a vDSO interface that > many people want and is acceptable to the maintainers (unless I've > horribly misread Andy's position). I don't think you've horribly misread it. I would like to keep the stuff in the vDSO as minimal as possible. If we need to add a fancier interface down the line, then that's fine.
