From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34E2C282CE for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 20:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8462E20851 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 20:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726510AbfFDUMd (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 16:12:33 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:65370 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726211AbfFDUMc (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 16:12:32 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jun 2019 13:12:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from sjchrist-coffee.jf.intel.com (HELO linux.intel.com) ([10.54.74.36]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2019 13:12:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:12:32 -0700 From: Sean Christopherson To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: Jethro Beekman , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "dave.hansen@intel.com" , "nhorman@redhat.com" , "npmccallum@redhat.com" , "serge.ayoun@intel.com" , "shay.katz-zamir@intel.com" , "haitao.huang@intel.com" , "andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "kai.svahn@intel.com" , "bp@alien8.de" , "josh@joshtriplett.org" , "luto@kernel.org" , "kai.huang@intel.com" , "rientjes@google.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 15/28] x86/sgx: Add the Linux SGX Enclave Driver Message-ID: <20190604201232.GA7775@linux.intel.com> References: <20190417103938.7762-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20190417103938.7762-16-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20190422215831.GL1236@linux.intel.com> <6dd981a7-0e38-1273-45c1-b2c0d8bf6fed@fortanix.com> <20190424002653.GB14422@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190424002653.GB14422@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-sgx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 05:26:53PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:29:24PM +0000, Jethro Beekman wrote: > > On 2019-04-22 14:58, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > >Where do we stand on removing the ACPI and platform_driver dependencies? > > >Can we get rid of them sooner rather than later? > > > > You know my position on this... > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sgx/msg00624.html . I don't really have > > any new arguments. > > > > Considering the amount of planned changes for the driver post-merge, I think > > it's crucial that the driver part can be swapped out with alternative > > implementations. > > This gets far outside of my area of expertise as I think this is more of > a policy question as opposed to a technical question, e.g. do we export > function simply to allow out-of-tree alternatives. > > > >Now that the core SGX code is approaching stability, I'd like to start > > >sending RFCs for the EPC virtualization and KVM bits to hash out that side > > >of things. The ACPI crud is the last chunk of code that would require > > >non-trivial changes to the core SGX code for the proposed virtualization > > >implementation. I'd strongly prefer to get it out of the way before > > >sending the KVM RFCs. > > > > What kind of changes? Wouldn't KVM just be another consumer of the same API > > used by the driver? > > Nope, userspace "only" needs to be able to mmap() arbitrary chunks of EPC. > Except for EPC management, which is already in built into the kernel, the > EPC virtualization code has effectively zero overlap with the driver. Of > course this is all technically speculative since none of this is upstream... Jarkko, can you weigh in with your thoughts on the ACPI stuff?