On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:50 AM, <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On July 5, 2018 1:09:12 PM PDT, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 08:31:42AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2018 11:19 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> > +struct sgx_secs {
>>> > + uint64_t size;
>>> > + uint64_t base;
>>> > + uint32_t ssaframesize;
>>> > + uint32_t miscselect;
>>> > + uint8_t reserved1[SGX_SECS_RESERVED1_SIZE];
>>> > + uint64_t attributes;
>>> > + uint64_t xfrm;
>>> > + uint32_t mrenclave[8];
>>> > + uint8_t reserved2[SGX_SECS_RESERVED2_SIZE];
>>> > + uint32_t mrsigner[8];
>>> > + uint8_t reserved3[SGX_SECS_RESERVED3_SIZE];
>>> > + uint16_t isvvprodid;
>>> > + uint16_t isvsvn;
>>> > + uint8_t reserved4[SGX_SECS_RESERVED4_SIZE];
>>> > +} __packed __aligned(4096);
>>>
>>> Why are the uint* versions in use here? Those are for userspace ABI,
>>> but this is entirely for in-kernel-use, right?
>>>
>>> We've used u8/16/32/64 in arch code in a bunch of places. They're at
>>> least a bit more compact and easier to read. It's this:
>>>
>>> u8 foo;
>>> u64 bar;
>>>
>>> vs. this:
>>>
>>> uint8_t foo;
>>> uint64_t bar;
>>
>>The reason was that with in-kernel LE these were in fact used by
>>user space code. Now they can be changed to those that you
>>suggested.
> For things exported to user space use __u* and __s* types... the _t types would actually violate the C standard with respect to namespace pollution.
Hmm... Coding style 5(d) allows to use uintNN_t in new code (as a
variation of uNN choice).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
