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=-6.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 A4320C433E6 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 09:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FD322B43 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 09:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726059AbhAPJvi (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jan 2021 04:51:38 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39474 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725928AbhAPJvh (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jan 2021 04:51:37 -0500 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27CB4206D5; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 09:50:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1610790656; bh=fymB0S/JtJWUAJLdLaFMjTbgs2PWZvDpYZFOfxMdloU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=j1IXaaEL942XJJzPyw2ijBZdZ2qFC9F5ggnqSlrsJe6vsyBbquxOdwb8rWMRKOTuS vjahNUJLkdDq+Qo8tlXXlK2Mffknz9my6zJCyAOP7JwO9dNgcCeiQKdVCLP9twzwS/ OO1LRytgaz9dgsQaG5JcpDJrUFtGg4uPtQAKgrcS9HIVMRKiW9pNep+Jx7w8T23yK8 4YKLBI4AgAW+iOf8CxLVrZFi/JwWk6PRc2JNOh3q6HzQJm2fkmboxhrITqjRKHc9Cx 6fhEj1hPd2H1q+k0pKhYQiyFGz/NFRPfuzhXKkgGcZ7nAPY98NQHkct5gWRlFFtSIg xtvVSKqDsX0iQ== Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 11:50:49 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Kai Huang Cc: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, seanjc@google.com, luto@kernel.org, dave.hansen@intel.com, haitao.huang@intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, jethro@fortanix.com, b.thiel@posteo.de, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, corbet@lwn.net Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/23] KVM SGX virtualization support Message-ID: References: <2422737f6b0cddf6ff1be9cf90e287dd00d6a6a3.camel@kernel.org> <20210112141428.038533b6cd5f674c906a3c43@intel.com> <20210112150756.f3fb039ac1bb176262da5e52@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:31:49AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:43:18AM +1300, Kai Huang wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 15:07 +1300, Kai Huang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To support virtual EPC, add a new misc device /dev/sgx_virt_epc to SGX > > > > > > > core/driver to allow userspace (Qemu) to allocate "raw" EPC, and use it as > > > > > > > "virtual EPC" for guest. Obviously, unlike EPC allocated for host SGX > > > > > > > driver, > > > > > > > virtual EPC allocated via /dev/sgx_virt_epc doesn't have enclave > > > > > > > associated, > > > > > > > and how virtual EPC is used by guest is compeletely controlled by guest's > > > > > > > SGX > > > > > > > software. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that /dev/sgx_vepc would be a clear enough name for the device. This > > > > > > text has now a bit confusing "terminology" related to this. > > > > > > > > > > /dev/sgx_virt_epc may be clearer from userspace's perspective, for instance, > > > > > if people see /dev/sgx_vepc, they may have to think about what it is, > > > > > while /dev/sgx_virt_epc they may not. > > > > > > > > > > But I don't have strong objection here. Does anyone has anything to say here? > > > > > > > > It's already an abberevation to start with, why leave it halfways? > > > > > > > > Especially when three remaining words have been shrunk to single > > > > characters ('E', 'P' and 'C'). > > > > > > > > > > I have expressed my opinion above. And as I said I don't have strong objection > > > here. I'll change to /dev/sgx_vepc if no one opposes. > > > > Hi Jarkko, > > > > I am reluctant to change to /dev/sgx_vepc now, because there are lots of > > 'sgx_virt_epc' in the code. For instance, 'struct sgx_virt_epc', and function names > > in sgx/virt.c are all sgx_virt_epc_xxx(), which has 'sgx_virt_epc' as prefix. I feel > > changing to /dev/sgx_vepc only is kinda incomplete, but I really don't want to change > > so many 'sgx_virt_epc' to 'sgx_vepc'. > > > > (Plus I still think 'virt_epc' is more obvious than 'vepc' from userspace's > > perspective.) > > > > Does it make sense? > > We can reconsider naming later on for sure, and maybe it's better to do > so. It's probably too early to define the final name. > > As far as naming goes, I'm actually wondering is this usable outside of > KVM by any means? If not, then probably the best name for this device > would be sgx_kvm_epc. Better to be always as explicit as possible. You can easily do such renames with git filter-branch over a patch set: https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History Having to rename something in too many places is not an argument. Considering it too early is. /Jarkko