On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:06:38AM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:18 AM Jarkko Sakkinen > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:40:24AM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:58 AM Jarkko Sakkinen > > > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:42:29PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:48 PM Jarkko Sakkinen > > > > > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:08:06AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > > > Nathaniel pointed out that __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() is tantalizingly > > > > > > > close to being callable from C (with caveats and a cooperative enclave). > > > > > > > The missing pieces are preserving %rbx and taking @leaf as a standard > > > > > > > parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > > > - Rebase to Jarkko's latest master, commit 402fb35a477a, "docs: ...") > > > > > > > - Add CFI directive for RBX. [Cedric] > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for throwing stick's constantly but I think having a real > > > > > > ELF loader is for better. > > > > > > This statement seems like you are juxtaposing having > > > __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() be potentially C-compatible with having an > > > ELF-loader. These are not incompabile. __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() can > > > be C-callable *and* you can have an ELF loader. > > > > I'm not honestly sure what this is about but my comment was about heavy > > rebasing of the GIT tree as I rewrote the selftest last week. > > Okay. Let's chalk it up to miscommunication then. :) Ha, I was in the same boat as Nathaniel. We thought the "having a real ELF loader comment" was a comment on the patch itself, i.e. that you disagreed with it in some way because it didn't support an ELF loader, hence our confusion. Now I realize you were refering to the rebase needed due to rewriting the selftest to use an ELF loader. Crisis aborted :-)
