lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v13 09/13] x86/sgx: Enclave Page Cache (EPC) memory manager
    From
    Date
    On 08/28/2018 02:22 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
    > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 07:07:33AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
    >> On 08/28/2018 01:35 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 02:15:34PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
    >>>> On 08/27/2018 11:53 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    >>>>> +struct sgx_epc_page_ops {
    >>>>> + bool (*get)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
    >>>>> + void (*put)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
    >>>>> + bool (*reclaim)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
    >>>>> + void (*block)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
    >>>>> + void (*write)(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page);
    >>>>> +};
    >>>> Why do we need a fancy, slow (retpoline'd) set of function pointers when
    >>>> we only have one user of these (the SGX driver)?
    >>> KVM has its own implementation for these operations.
    >>
    >> That belongs in the changelog.
    >>
    >> Also, where is the implementation? How can we assess this code that was
    >> built to create an abstraction without both of the users?
    >
    > I can provide an early preview of the KVM reclaim code, but honestly
    > I think that would do more harm than good. The VMX architecture for
    > EPC reclaim is complex, even for SGX standards. Opening that can of
    > worms would likely derail this discussion. That being said, this
    > abstraction isn't exactly what KVM will need, but it's pretty close
    > and gives us something to build on.

    Please remove the abstraction code. We don't introduce infrastructure
    which no one will use.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-08-28 23:27    [W:4.898 / U:0.200 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site