On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:33:43PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:31:56PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 02:42:53PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Add a WARN to detect EPC page leaks when releasing an enclave. The > > > release flow uses the common sgx_encl_destroy() helper, which is allowed > > > to be called while the reclaimer holds references to the enclave's EPC > > > pages and so can't WARN in the scenario where the SECS is leaked because > > > it has active child pages. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > index c13c3ba3430a..b4d7b2f9609f 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > @@ -511,6 +511,7 @@ void sgx_encl_release(struct kref *ref) > > > fput(encl->backing); > > > > > > WARN_ONCE(!list_empty(&encl->mm_list), "mm_list non-empty"); > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(encl->secs_child_cnt || encl->secs.epc_page); > > > > I'd prefer to have two WARN_ON_ONCE()'s. I think disjunction's should > > not be used with WARN*() (conjunction's obviously should when they are > > required). > > > > I changed this to: > > > > /* Detect EPC page leak's. */ > > WARN_ON_ONCE(encl->secs_child_cnt); > > WARN_ON_ONCE(encl->secs.epc_page); > > > > The patch has been merged. > > Should the mm_list check also use the same macro? The associated message > is somewhat useless, isn't it? Yep.
