On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 07:25:05AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 12:46:11AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > The documentation, selftest and the kernel source code use the terms "user > > > > handler" and "exit handler" in somewhat inconsistent manner. Start using > > > > "AEX handler" consistently as this is the term that Intel SDM volume D uses > > > > for these events. > > > > > > No, AEX is specifically for "asynchronus" exits. In this context, that is > > > limited to the exception path. The vDSO invokes the user handler for EEXIT, > > > i.e. the synchrous path, which is not an AEX. > > > > OK, I but this one. > > > > I got gray hairs because: > > > > - API called it user handler. > > - Documentation called it exit handler. > > - Selftest called it exit handler. > > > > I think user_handler is too generic and abstract but I'm happy to hear > > other proposals than 'exit_' to which I will change given your feedback. > > OK, so here I use my "too generic" argument pick user handler anyhow > because we don't know what the heck the handler is doing. > > 'exit_handler' implies that not only it would be called for enclave > exit resulting from an exception, but also for EEXIT path. Wile editing the commit message I read what I had written about flags. It was quite terrible, to say the least. I'll send update soon. /Jarkko
