On Mon Jul 24, 2023 at 10:46 AM UTC, Jo Van Bulck wrote: > On 22.07.23 20:10, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > This code is not meant for production. I implemented it specifically for > > kselftest, and that is exactly its scope. > > I see, makes sense. As per Dave's suggestion, I'll see if I can submit a > proposed minimal patch to remove any existing sanitization code that is > not necessary for kselftest (eg register cleansing) and avoid any > misguided impressions of the test enclave being representative. > > > I'm not sure what is "correct" behavior in the context of a kselftest > > instance. > > True. But at least when defining "correct" as passing the selftests, > then I think it makes sense to merge the compiler optimization fixes. As > the existing code clearly emits wrong assembly that breaks the selftests > when switching optimization levels (which may always also be > incorporated by default in future gcc versions or other compilers like > clang). > > Thus, I'll separate this out and submit another patch to ensure > correctness with compiler optimizations only. > > Best, > Jo It should be relatively easy to relicense the code as most of the commits have Intel copyright. Personally I would not mind because that would give opportunity for code that I wrote to have a wider audience but it needs to be forked with some other license first. BR, Jarkko
