On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:20:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > __sgx_encl_add_page() can only fail in the case of EPCM conflict at least > in non-artificial situations. Also, it consistent semantics in rollback is > something to pursue for. Thus, destroy enclave when the EADD fails as we do > when EEXTEND fails already. I still don't understand the motiviation for this change, EADD can fault and fail for reasons that are purely under userspace control. Yes, it's all but guaranteed to be a userspace bug, but I can't think of another instance in the kernel where the reaction to what is effectively an invalid param is to torch the whole thing. EEXTEND is special cased because the kernel doesn't have any other sane choice.
