Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 02:58:34 +0300
From:   "jarkko@kernel.org" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc:     "pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de" <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Dhanraj, Vijay" <vijay.dhanraj@intel.com>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "haitao.huang@linux.intel.com" <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an error
Message-ID: <YxFHKttZMxbbmo5z@kernel.org>
References: <Yw7LJa7eRG+WZ0wv@kernel.org>
 <c3c085d69311ed759bff5bb325a2c182d423f91f.camel@intel.com>
 <Yw7OEh7QP8tb7BR1@kernel.org>
 <a91f65ad5c392b6e34f07bc6d3f35c89a76a98db.camel@intel.com>
 <op.1rrt4aecwjvjmi@hhuan26-mobl1.mshome.net>
 <Yw+oR3FKlwbeOl6I@kernel.org>
 <ea61a9ee-96dc-4f23-9de3-34e033391abc@intel.com>
 <94993d90b0b3c59fae61427cf0cc78dd10c381bb.camel@intel.com>
 <YxExyuA/+ptl0Y4G@kernel.org>
 <e1229a770fd2b4ec6642b921ec4a7e9ed0d11a3b.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e1229a770fd2b4ec6642b921ec4a7e9ed0d11a3b.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:41:54PM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-09-02 at 01:27 +0300, jarkko@kernel.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:42:59PM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 11:35 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > Jarkko, Kai and Haitao,
> > > > 
> > > > Can you three please start trimming your replies?  You don't need to and
> > > > should not quote the entirety of your messages every time you reply.
> > > > 
> > > > On 8/31/22 11:28, jarkko@kernel.org wrote:
> > > > > > Will it cause racing if we expose dev nodes to user space before
> > > > > > ksgxd is started and sensitization done?
> > > > > I'll to explain this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So the point is to fix the issue at hand, and fix it locally.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changing initialization order is simply out of context. It's
> > > > > not really an argument for or against changing it
> > > > > 
> > > > > We are fixing sanitization here, and only that with zero
> > > > > side-effects to any other semantics.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's dictated by the development process [*] but more
> > > > > importantly it's also just plain common sense.
> > > > 
> > > > Kai, I think your suggestion is reasonable.  You make a good point about
> > > > not needing ksgxd for vepc.
> > > > 
> > > > *But*, I think it's a bit too much for a bugfix that's headed to
> > > > -stable.  I'm concerned that it will have unintended side effects,
> > > > *especially* when there's a working, tested alternative.
> > > 
> > > Agreed. Thanks Dave/Jarkko.
> > 
> > Please do a patch. It's a very reasonable suggestion when
> > considered out of context of this bug.
> > 
> > If you go really rigid with this, the compilation process
> > should not compile in sanitization process in the case when
> > only vepc is enabled. It's useless functionality in that
> > case.
> > 
> > BR, Jarkko
> 
> Yeah I am planning to work out one to see how it goes.

Looking forward to try it out :-)

BR, Jarkko