Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: F5NqhzqKfocXtUwAssTqgSwAASDyx6qUmcxOi/JnqqRgQip9n58Q15JfI4ihnRU6Pb+9fAN4cg
 jfysVq/QnMkw==
IronPort-SDR: Ncq7pUS/J7GeyXjQY9EWCGqsA6GvmdU92K2DdO4C3cY+fqn2nPWLihlMvCyyazpG8iDqDMtylT
 M/IOqx6DyFbg==
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:40:22 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
        asapek@google.com, cedric.xing@intel.com, chenalexchen@google.com,
        conradparker@google.com, cyhanish@google.com,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, haitao.huang@intel.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, kai.huang@intel.com, kai.svahn@intel.com,
        kmoy@google.com, ludloff@google.com, luto@kernel.org,
        nhorman@redhat.com, npmccallum@redhat.com, puiterwijk@redhat.com,
        rientjes@google.com, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, yaozhangx@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v38 17/24] x86/sgx: ptrace() support for the SGX driver'
Message-ID: <20200924204022.GE108958@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200915112842.897265-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20200915112842.897265-18-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20200922154424.GL22660@zn.tnic>
 <20200923132037.GA5160@linux.intel.com>
 <20200923161733.GP28545@zn.tnic>
 <20200924115119.GD56811@linux.intel.com>
 <20200924155751.GJ5030@zn.tnic>
 <20200924203859.GD108958@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200924203859.GD108958@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:39:07PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:57:51PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:51:28PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:17:33PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > > Add 'access' implementation to vm_ops with the help of these functions.
> > > > 
> > > > "Add an ->access virtual MM function for accessing the enclave's memory... "
> > > 
> > > Thank you. I wrote the last paragraph like this:
> > > 
> > > "Add an '->access' virtual function for accessing the enclave's memory
> > > to vm_ops by using these functions. This allows to use ptrace() with
> > 
> > "to vm_ops" must come after "function".
> > 
> > But lemme ask what is "vm_ops"?
> 
> I assume this is a rethorical question and I notice what I suggested
> looks as bad as my earlier commit message :-)
> 
> So, I gave it some thought that and decided to "open code" the paragraph
> as
> 
> "Add sgx_vma_access() function that implements 'access' virtual function
> of struct vm_operations_struct. Use formentioned leaf instructions to
> achieve read and write primitives for the enclave memory."
> 
> I think this starts to have the right balance and is understandable.
> 
> Still open for futher suggestion of course.

I'm not sure if I said it already but I also added cc to linux-mm (same
CC's in the patch as with mprotect callback commit). This should also
have mm ack I think.

/Jarkko