On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 01:27:58AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 15:54 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > Hi Jarkko, > > > > On 8/29/2022 8:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > In sgx_init(), if misc_register() for the provision device fails, and > > > neither sgx_drv_init() nor sgx_vepc_init() succeeds, then ksgxd will be > > > prematurely stopped. > > > > I do not think misc_register() is required to fail for the scenario to > > be triggered (rather use "or" than "and"?). Perhaps just > > "In sgx_init(), if a failure is encountered after ksgxd is started > > (via sgx_page_reclaimer_init()) ...". > > IMHO "a failure" might be too vague. For instance, failure to sgx_drv_init() > won't immediately result in ksgxd to stop prematurally. As long as KVM SGX can > be initialized successfully, sgx_init() still returns 0. > > Btw I was thinking whether we should move sgx_page_reclaimer_init() to the end > of sgx_init(), after we make sure at least one of the driver and the KVM SGX is > initialized successfully. Then the code change in this patch won't be necessary > if I understand correctly. AFAICT there's no good reason to start the ksgxd at > early stage before we are sure either the driver or KVM SGX will work. I would focus fixing the existing flow rather than reinventing the flow. It can be made to work, and therefore it is IMHO correct action to take. > Btw currently EPC pages assigned to KVM guest cannot be reclaimed, so > theoretically ksgxd can be moved to sgx_drv_init(), but who knows someday we > will decide to make KVM guest EPC pages to be able to be reclaimed. :) I'm open to changes but it is in my opinion out of context for this. > > > > -- > Thanks, > -Kai > > BR, Jarkko
