On Fri, 2022-06-03 at 13:15 +1200, Du, Fan wrote: > > > > This applies on top of Cathy's series, right? Why not send one > > series with all 12 patches included? > > > > It makes reviewing easier, and we are well beyond 5.19 timeline > > for these features. > > Patches from Zhiquan try to improve SGX MCA handling, actually this is a BUG > being > discussed with customer with SGX deployment already - SGX VM instance got > killed > in case of SGX application inside VM consumed poison EPC pages. Expected > behavior: > SGX application get killed only in such scenario. > > Seamless patchset from Catchy is another standalone feature, the design seems > still under discussion. Combining those two distinct purpose-built patchset > together > looks wired. Right. Those are two different features and I don't see why they should be sent out together. Btw, please also note Cathy's SGX rebootless recovery may never get accepted: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/Yo0xSNt0JKGgOG59@xxxxxxx/T/#m4d1a56fc3ed547d200443dab50bed6484e6d2e1d https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220524185324.28395-1-bp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Zhiquan's patchset introduced the SGX_EPC_PAGE_IS_VEPC [1] macro to mark guest > EPC page, luckily Cathy's patchset also has a prior built macro > SGX_EPC_PAGE_KVM_GUEST > with same semantics as a simple standalone patch[2]. > > For completeness, how about incorporate Cathy's patch[2](keep original > authorship) > into Zhiquan up-coming next version(3 patch from Zhiquan, 1 patch from Cathy)? > Offline synced with Cathy, she is personally ok. while let's see what others > think about on > how to prioritize those two things - bugfix and feature enhancement. Zhiquan's series only needs one flag: SGX_EPC_PAGE_KVM_GUEST. It doesn't need SGX_EPC_PAGE_VA. I would suggest to just use SGX_EPC_PAGE_KVM_GUEST (if it is preferred comparing to SGX_EPC_PAGE_IS_VEPC) in Zhiquan's series. -- Thanks, -Kai
