On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 02:58:33PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > 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. -EIO should be returned in both cases so that caller has a way to determine if the ENCLS operations failed. They sum into a transaction that is why the rollback must be the same for any sane semantics. If the caller wants to purposely cause that, it is caller choice. And we don't want to purposely support completely undeterministic behaviour when there is no backwards compatibility to maintain. /Jarkko
