On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:39:07PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:57:51PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:51:28PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:17:33PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > Add 'access' implementation to vm_ops with the help of these functions. > > > > > > > > "Add an ->access virtual MM function for accessing the enclave's memory... " > > > > > > Thank you. I wrote the last paragraph like this: > > > > > > "Add an '->access' virtual function for accessing the enclave's memory > > > to vm_ops by using these functions. This allows to use ptrace() with > > > > "to vm_ops" must come after "function". > > > > But lemme ask what is "vm_ops"? > > I assume this is a rethorical question and I notice what I suggested > looks as bad as my earlier commit message :-) > > So, I gave it some thought that and decided to "open code" the paragraph > as > > "Add sgx_vma_access() function that implements 'access' virtual function > of struct vm_operations_struct. Use formentioned leaf instructions to > achieve read and write primitives for the enclave memory." > > I think this starts to have the right balance and is understandable. > > Still open for futher suggestion of course. I'm not sure if I said it already but I also added cc to linux-mm (same CC's in the patch as with mprotect callback commit). This should also have mm ack I think. /Jarkko
