On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 17:38 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:21:41AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:00:03PM -0800, Sean Christopherson
> > wrote:
> > > What about SGX_LC_ENABLE? The title in the MSR section of the
> > > SDM is
> > > "SGX Launch Control Enable", and it's more consistent with the
> > > other
> > > bits defined in feature control. I'd also prefer that name for
> > > the
> > > actual #define too, SGX_LAUNCH_CONTROL_ENABLE is overly verbose
> > > IMO.
> >
> > This is a bit ugly name but it is also very clear:
> >
> > FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LEPUBKEYHASH_WRITE_ENABLE
> >
> > Just pushed update to the le branch. SGX_LC_ENABLE is a nice short
> > name
> > but it does not reflect the semantics.
> >
> > Maybe we could combine these and name it as
> >
> > FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LC_WRITE_ENABLE
> >
> > It is not as ugly and is very clear what it does.
>
> I ended up with FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LC_WR. I think that is fairly
> reasonable name for bit 17.
Why not using FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_LE_WR? "LE_WR" is even used in SDM
41.2.2 Intel SGX Launch Control Configuration:
If IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL.LE_WR (bit 17) is set to 1 and
IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL is locked on that logical processor,
IA32_SGXLEPUBKEYHASH MSRs on that logical
processor then the IA32_SGXLEPUBKEYHASHn MSR are writeable.
Thanks,
-Kai
>
> /Jarkko
From 1585415442468645276@xxx Wed Nov 29 15:39:48 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585067873856116866
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread