Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:45:25 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>,
        "Dr . Greg Wettstein" <greg@enjellic.com>
Subject: Re: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal
Message-ID: <20190109144524.GA8367@linux.intel.com>
References: <20181219091148.GA5121@linux.intel.com>
 <613c6814-4e71-38e5-444a-545f0e286df8@fortanix.com>
 <20181219144515.GA30909@linux.intel.com>
 <CALCETrW_8LnitFamYUU7POHFOJFxLO7ESFUdS=aeG_SOvHVPkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181220103204.GB26410@linux.intel.com>
 <20181222081649.GB8895@linux.intel.com>
 <20181222082502.GA13275@linux.intel.com>
 <20190102204752.GG7460@linux.intel.com>
 <20190103150256.GA17015@linux.intel.com>
 <20190103162634.GA8610@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190103162634.GA8610@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 08:26:35AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> What I was trying to explain is that the uapi isn't for KVM, it's for
> the userspace hypervisor, e.g. Qemu.  Qemu will inform KVM of the
> resulting guest memory region so that KVM can configure its guest page
> tables accordingly, but that is done through KVM's existing memory uapi.

OK, I now I got it, apologies it took such a long time :-)

Now I see the analogy e.g. qemu creates independently VMAs and then
fuels those regions to KVM. Similarly qemu would create regions for
KVM using "/dev/sgx/mem".

For me this is perfectly fine now I understand the reasoning and neither
does make my job more difficult to implement the file based enclave
change.

Thanks for the patience with this...

/Jarkko