On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 04:52:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:52:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst > > b/Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst > > index 59472cd6a11d..35f713e3a267 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst > > @@ -323,6 +323,7 @@ Code Seq# Include File > > Comments > > > > <mailto:tle...@mindspring.com> > > 0xA3 90-9F linux/dtlk.h > > 0xA4 00-1F uapi/linux/tee.h > > Generic TEE subsystem > > +0xA4 00-1F uapi/asm/sgx.h Intel > > SGX subsystem (a legit conflict as TEE and SGX do not co-exist) > > Again, maybe add <mailto:linux-...@vger.kernel.org> ? > > This is from a previous review - please be more careful when addressing > review comments - either do them or object to them but silently ignoring > them is not cool. > > > 0xAA 00-3F linux/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h > > 0xAB 00-1F linux/nbd.h > > 0xAC 00-1F linux/raw.h > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sgx.h > > b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sgx.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..3787d278e84b > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sgx.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause) WITH > > Linux-syscall-note */ > > checkpatch is not happy about something: > > WARNING: 'SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause) WITH > Linux-syscall-note */' is not supported in LICENSES/... > #79: FILE: arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sgx.h:1: > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause) WITH > Linux-syscall-note */
I don't know what has gone in my head when I wrote that but it looks plain wrong even without running checkpatch.pl The line should express the dijunction of "GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note" and "BSD-3-Clause". Grepping the kernel tree, I can find 34 instances of these in uapi files: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) */ I have not checked if this passes checkpatch.pl yet, but I would be surprised if that did not pass (obviously I'll check that). > > ... > > > +/** > > + * sgx_ioc_enclave_create - handler for %SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_CREATE > > + * @filep: open file to /dev/sgx > > Also from a previous review: > > "That's > > @encl: enclave pointer > > or so." Yes, for sure. Thanks. > > + * @arg: userspace pointer to a struct sgx_enclave_create instance > > + * > > + * Allocate kernel data structures for a new enclave and execute ECREATE > > after > > + * verifying the correctness of the provided SECS. > > + * > > + * Note, enforcement of restricted and disallowed attributes is deferred > > until > > + * sgx_ioc_enclave_init(), only the architectural correctness of the SECS > > is > > + * checked by sgx_ioc_enclave_create(). > > From that same review: > > "Well, I don't see that checking. Where is it?" > > Ok, I'm going to stop here. Please go over v33's review and either > address *all* feedback or incorporate it into your patches if you agree > with it but do not silently ignore it. One of the things I very strongly > detest is ignored review comments. I'm sorry about that. This was not intentional. I'll revisit them by going through all your responses from here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11581715/ v34 had the splitting of the big driver patch into multiple patches. During that process I've obviously failed to address these. > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette /Jarkko
