On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14:51AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I don't get this. The swapper takes a read lock on mm->mmap_sem, which locks
> > the vma, which in turn reference counts vma->vm_file. Why is the internal
> > refcount still needed?
>
> mmap_sem is only held when reclaim is
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 09:47:06AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > From: Jarkko Sakkinen [mailto:jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 6:48 AM
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:37:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:14:04PM -0700, Andy
> From: Jarkko Sakkinen [mailto:jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 6:48 AM
>
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:37:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:14:04PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 5, 2019, at 8:17 AM, Jarkko
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:37:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:14:04PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 5, 2019, at 8:17 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 10:10:22PM +, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > >> A bit
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:14:04PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2019, at 8:17 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 10:10:22PM +, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> >> A bit off topic here. This mmap()/mprotect() discussion reminds me a
> >> question (guess
> On Jun 5, 2019, at 8:17 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 10:10:22PM +, Xing, Cedric wrote:
>> A bit off topic here. This mmap()/mprotect() discussion reminds me a
>> question (guess for Jarkko): Now that vma->vm_file->private_data keeps
>> a pointer to the
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 10:10:22PM +, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> A bit off topic here. This mmap()/mprotect() discussion reminds me a
> question (guess for Jarkko): Now that vma->vm_file->private_data keeps
> a pointer to the enclave, why do we store it again in vma->vm_private?
> It isn't a big
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:16:04PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:50 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:31:52PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > SGX enclaves have an associated Enclave Linear Range (ELRANGE) that is
> > > tracked and
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:10:22PM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> A bit off topic here. This mmap()/mprotect() discussion reminds me a question
> (guess for Jarkko): Now that vma->vm_file->private_data keeps a pointer to
> the enclave, why do we store it again in vma->vm_private? It isn't a big deal
> From: linux-sgx-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-sgx-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Andy Lutomirski
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 1:16 PM
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:50 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:31:52PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:50 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:31:52PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > SGX enclaves have an associated Enclave Linear Range (ELRANGE) that is
> > tracked and enforced by the CPU using a base+mask approach, similar to
> > how hardware
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:31:52PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> SGX enclaves have an associated Enclave Linear Range (ELRANGE) that is
> tracked and enforced by the CPU using a base+mask approach, similar to
> how hardware range registers such as the variable MTRRs. As a result,
> the
SGX enclaves have an associated Enclave Linear Range (ELRANGE) that is
tracked and enforced by the CPU using a base+mask approach, similar to
how hardware range registers such as the variable MTRRs. As a result,
the ELRANGE must be naturally sized and aligned.
To reduce boilerplate code that
13 matches
Mail list logo
