On Thu, 2019-08-22 at 19:05 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > This can we verified from the SDM easily (SCRATCH_SECINFO gets zeros
> > is extended after that).
> >
> > And also from my signing tool :-)
> >
> > for (offset = 0; offset < sb.st_size; offset += 0x1000) {
> > if (!offset)
> > flags = SGX_SECINFO_TCS;
> > else
> > flags = SGX_SECINFO_REG | SGX_SECINFO_R |
> > SGX_SECINFO_W | SGX_SECINFO_X;
> >
> > OK, so this looks like that my patch does exactly the right thing,
> > right?
>
> That's my understanding as well. Definitely worthy of a comment
> explaining all of the above.
Now that I looked at my own code I even remember going through this
same thought process three years ago when I wrote that :-) Oh well.
So should I apply my zero check patch?
/Jarkko
