On 6/3/24 11:42, Haitao Huang wrote:
>> Second, convince me that this _needs_ a new bit. Why can't we just have
>> a bit that effectively means "return EBUSY if you see this bit when
>> handling a fault".
>
> IIUC, reclaimer_writing_to_pcmd() also uses
> SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_RECLAIMED to check if
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 09:23:13AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/17/24 04:06, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii wrote:
> ...
>
> First, why is SGX so special here? How is the SGX problem different
> than what the core mm code does?
Here is my understanding why SGX is so special and why I have to introduce
a n
On Tue, 28 May 2024 11:23:13 -0500, Dave Hansen
wrote:
On 5/17/24 04:06, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii wrote:
...
First, why is SGX so special here? How is the SGX problem different
than what the core mm code does?
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
@@ -25,6 +25
On 5/17/24 04:06, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii wrote:
...
First, why is SGX so special here? How is the SGX problem different
than what the core mm code does?
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
> @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@
> /* 'desc' bit marking that the page is being re
Two enclave threads may try to add and remove the same enclave page
simultaneously (e.g., if the SGX runtime supports both lazy allocation
and MADV_DONTNEED semantics). Consider some enclave page added to the
enclave. User space decides to temporarily remove this page (e.g.,
emulating the MADV_DONT
5 matches
Mail list logo
