On 7/18/22 02:50, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> -int sgx_encl_get_backing(struct sgx_encl *encl, unsigned long page_index, >> - struct sgx_backing *backing); >> +int sgx_encl_lookup_backing(struct sgx_encl *encl, unsigned long page_index, >> + struct sgx_backing *backing); >> +int sgx_encl_alloc_backing(struct sgx_encl *encl, unsigned long page_index, >> + struct sgx_backing *backing); >> void sgx_encl_put_backing(struct sgx_backing *backing); > So this is making the sgx_encl_get_backing() thing static but its > counterpart sgx_encl_put_backing() is not and is still called by other > places. > > Perhaps something wrong with the layering or is this on purpose? All three of the: sgx_encl_get_backing() sgx_encl_lookup_backing() sgx_encl_alloc_backing() functions take a reference on the backing storage that must be dropped with sgx_encl_put_backing(). The "lookup" and "alloc" were added because there really are two different users: 1. I want to *create* backing storage space (alloc) 2. I want to find *existing* backing storage (lookup) and those two logical uses need different cgroup accounting semantics. As a further cleanup, it would probably be nice to explicitly document that "lookup" and "alloc" also require a subsequent "put". It would also be nice to change sgx_encl_get_backing() to __sgx_encl_get_backing() to make it clear that it's an internal thing. So, I think the _code_ is OK as-is, but it could use some more love.
|