On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:51 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/31/18 3:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > I think EENTER in plain user code should have well defined semantics, > > and it should get regular signals with the appropriate bits set in > > the error code field in the ucontext. But we should probably > > simultaneously offer a nicer API, and the libraries will use it > > because it’s nicer. > > FWIW, if we have a signal-based version and a VDSO-based version, nobody > will use the VDSO one. > > The Intel libraries are surely going to keep using the approach they've > been using for years and I doubt their owners will be tempted even by a > simpler interface to change one line of code. > > If we want to do the VDSO route, I think we probably need to go > whole-hog and toss the signal-based one. That's a fair point. We don't want a situation where a widely-used SGX library registers a SIGSEGV handler.
