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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 C86F4C433DB for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 03:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701D92388E for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 03:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725923AbhAUDcA (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:32:00 -0500 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:2613 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388654AbhATXt0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:49:26 -0500 IronPort-SDR: Rc1ysZKafz5YsI+c8MpLliL5+YKxUfXkubGPQS5q0h1wd+XIaDoadY2In1BdvIxyyD9OSGm/5H Sh2HD+S94AFw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9870"; a="264006783" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,362,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="264006783" Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jan 2021 15:48:36 -0800 IronPort-SDR: cBRq6EAOaFq8mFCca9V0wIrx/PMa9vz2vg5KHTsWCgO+aFvXiz7A1MDimMRkV0EI0efW9ZILuI bKUIGaIjlHmw== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,362,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="407066390" Received: from gapoveda-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO khuang2-desk.gar.corp.intel.com) ([10.254.79.186]) by fmsmga003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jan 2021 15:48:32 -0800 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:48:30 +1300 From: Kai Huang To: Dave Hansen Cc: Sean Christopherson , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/26] x86/cpu/intel: Allow SGX virtualization without Launch Control support Message-Id: <20210121124830.3cb323c5ead91800645c912a@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <666e0995-cf08-1ed9-20b2-f64d1ce64c20@intel.com> References: <666e0995-cf08-1ed9-20b2-f64d1ce64c20@intel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:27:27 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote: > On 1/20/21 2:36 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote: > >> BTW, CONFIG_X86_SGX_VIRTUALIZATION is a pretty porky name. Maybe just > >> CONFIG_X86_SGX_VIRT? > > Mmm, bacon. I used the full "virtualization" to avoid any possible confusion > > with virtual memory. The existing sgx_get_epc_virt_addr() in particular gave me > > pause. > > > > I agree it's long and not consistent since other code in this series uses "virt". > > My thinking was that most shortand versions, e.g. virt_epc, would be used only > > in contexts that are already fairly obvious to be KVM/virtualization related, > > whereas the porcine Kconfig would help establish that context. > > Not a big deal either way. I agree that "virt" can be confusing. > > Considering that: > > +config X86_SGX_VIRTUALIZATION > + depends on ... KVM_INTEL It is already in patch 3: Introduce virtual EPC for use by KVM guests: +config X86_SGX_VIRTUALIZATION + bool "Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) Virtualization" + depends on X86_SGX && KVM_INTEL > > Calling it X86_SGX_KVM doesn't seem horrible either.