On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:46:03PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 10:00:57AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > What do we gain by a single buffer vs. separate buffers? The ioctl()
> > would be slightly smaller but it seems like the actual code would be
> > more complex.
>
> I'm fine with either. It was just a suggestion.
>
> > The enclave build process also utilizes the backing as temp storage
> > to avoid having to alloc kernel memory when queueing pages to be added
> > by the worker thread (which reminds me that I wanted to document why a
> > worker thread is used). Keeping this behavior would effectively make
> > providing backing mandatory.
>
> Would it be a problem just allocate those pages with alloc_page() and
> free them in the worker thread?
>
> > Are there any potential complications with ENCLS consuming userspace
> > pointers? We'd have to wrap them with user_access_{begin,end}() and
> > probably tweak the fixup, but I assume having the fixup handler means
> > we're generally ok?
>
> Last time I did it I used get_user_pages() for pinning. I'm not sure
> why I should do anything but just re-use that.
What about VA page swapping? Not saying that it'd have to be done right
now but we need to answer whether it is enclave local or a global asset.
If it is local it would also require an argument.
I will most likely won't fix this for v17 because this detail needs
careful consideration.
/Jarkko
