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;
Message-ID: <bba7e537fd9197a92358640ebb0aef365984cebc.camel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] x86/sgx: Provide indication of life-cycle of EPC
 pages
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Cathy Zhang <cathy.zhang@intel.com>, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:28:16 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20210917213836.175138-2-tony.luck@intel.com>
References: <20210827195543.1667168-1-tony.luck@intel.com>
         <20210917213836.175138-1-tony.luck@intel.com>
         <20210917213836.175138-2-tony.luck@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2021-09-17 at 14:38 -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> SGX EPC pages go through the following life cycle:
>=20
>         DIRTY ---> FREE ---> IN-USE --\
>                     ^                 |
>                     \-----------------/
>=20
> Recovery action for poison for a DIRTY or FREE page is simple. Just
> make sure never to allocate the page. IN-USE pages need some extra
> handling.
>=20
> It would be good to use the sgx_epc_page->owner field as an indicator
> of where an EPC page is currently in that cycle (owner !=3D NULL means
> the EPC page is IN-USE). But there is one caller, sgx_alloc_va_page(),
> that calls with NULL.
>=20
> Since there are multiple uses of the "owner" field with different types
> change the sgx_epc_page structure to define an anonymous union with
> each of the uses explicitly called out.

But it's still always a pointer.

And not only that, but two alternative fields in that union have *exactly* =
the
same type, so it's kind of artifically representing the problem more comple=
x
than it really is.

I'm not just getting, why all this complexity, and not a few casts instead?

I neither get the rename of "owner" to "private". It serves very little val=
ue.
I'm not saying that "owner" is best name ever but it's not *that* confusing
either. That I'm sure that it is definitely not very productive to rename i=
t.

Also there was still this "dirty". We could use ((void *)-1), which was als=
o
suggested for earlier revisions.

/Jarkko