On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 08:02:09AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 11:34 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 06/08/2018 10:09 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >
> > > + ret = sgx_edbgrd(encl, entry, align, data);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + break;
> > > + if (write) {
> > > + memcpy(data + offset, buf + i, cnt);
> > > + ret = sgx_edbgwr(encl, entry, align, data);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > + else
> > > + memcpy(buf + i,data + offset, cnt);
> > > + }
> > The SGX instructions like "edbgrd" be great to put on a license plat,
> > but we can do better in the kernel. Can you give these reasonable
> > english names, please? sgx_debug_write(), maybe?
>
> IMO the function names for ENCLS leafs are appropriate. The real
> issue is the lack of documentation of the ENCLS helpers and their
> naming conventions.
>
> The sgx_<leaf> functions, e.g. sgx_edbgrd(), are essentially direct
> invocations of the specific leaf, i.e. they are dumb wrappers to
> the lower level leaf functions, e.g. __edbgrd(). The wrappers exist
> primarily to deal with the boilerplate necessary to access a page in
> the EPC. sgx_<leaf> conveys that the function contains the preamble
> and/or postamble needed to execute its leaf, but otherwise does not
> contain any logic.
>
> Functions with actual logic do have English names, e.g.
> sgx_encl_init(), sgx_encl_add_page(), sgx_encl_modify_pages() etc...
I agree with Sean on the naming and agree with Dave on his comments in
earlier patch in the series needs a better documentation.
/Jarkko
