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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4D4ECAAA1 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 03:40:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229724AbiHaDk4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2022 23:40:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33376 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229659AbiHaDkz (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2022 23:40:55 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B2F18D3E5; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8375CB81E3B; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 03:40:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C79C5C433D6; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 03:40:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1661917251; bh=Il5YVxVcg7szkQ+GmwaV3LD8OB+7QYzLJ9JZruU/l7E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=tYw/COZBYfyqk9eBx6TDhe0Y8JFtlUOKUXqXMTW4Ii7BRwLVteJZsZ8kbjdNtRY/4 zMUX+Rs15SoyLi5VPIawB3AYZaVEonNzHgpYS2h4JfnbZ3JSN4Qgwc+OfUJ4+8MAyJ UJoKMTYbT0Bt9TVVbuyOA7gHdA86QHjsLndfqtHYqtmK5TZGFRq40cxhAVGMDPcRtq 3RKV2jeo9ZGAuHAqVbw0ENlcn3NtM4euRhWE3dE55/NSq9aJ3ebSym7XvRg7NPOhfF o64iveXPO8pS3OF8l0KHTck8QE8w99/2nNeQXKQ+jscoITly0LpS1JFJemy4leCnJh /56WCjnVNSEGw== Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 06:40:46 +0300 From: "jarkko@kernel.org" To: "Huang, Kai" Cc: "pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de" , "linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" , "Dhanraj, Vijay" , "Chatre, Reinette" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "bp@alien8.de" , "haitao.huang@linux.intel.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an error Message-ID: References: <20220830031206.13449-2-jarkko@kernel.org> <1f43e7b9-c101-3872-bd1b-add66933b285@intel.com> <1b3308a364317d36ad41961ea9cfee24aa122f02.camel@intel.com> <7d4e79a9b9751c479378dd0f21605dabc6507cc8.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <7d4e79a9b9751c479378dd0f21605dabc6507cc8.camel@intel.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 03:28:20AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 06:10 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 05:57:22AM +0300, jarkko@kernel.org wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 02:55:52AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 05:44 +0300, jarkko@kernel.org wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 02:35:53AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 05:15 +0300, jarkko@kernel.org wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 01:27:58AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 15:54 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jarkko, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/29/2022 8:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In sgx_init(), if misc_register() for the provision device fails, and > > > > > > > > > > neither sgx_drv_init() nor sgx_vepc_init() succeeds, then ksgxd will be > > > > > > > > > > prematurely stopped. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think misc_register() is required to fail for the scenario to > > > > > > > > > be triggered (rather use "or" than "and"?). Perhaps just > > > > > > > > > "In sgx_init(), if a failure is encountered after ksgxd is started > > > > > > > > > (via sgx_page_reclaimer_init()) ...". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO "a failure" might be too vague. For instance, failure to sgx_drv_init() > > > > > > > > won't immediately result in ksgxd to stop prematurally. As long as KVM SGX can > > > > > > > > be initialized successfully, sgx_init() still returns 0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw I was thinking whether we should move sgx_page_reclaimer_init() to the end > > > > > > > > of sgx_init(), after we make sure at least one of the driver and the KVM SGX is > > > > > > > > initialized successfully. Then the code change in this patch won't be necessary > > > > > > > > if I understand correctly. AFAICT there's no good reason to start the ksgxd at > > > > > > > > early stage before we are sure either the driver or KVM SGX will work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would focus fixing the existing flow rather than reinventing the flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It can be made to work, and therefore it is IMHO correct action to take. > > > > > > > > > > > > From another perspective, the *existing flow* is the reason which causes this > > > > > > bug. A real fix is to fix the flow itself. > > > > > > > > > > Any existing flow in part of the kernel can have a bug. That > > > > > does not mean that switching flow would be proper way to fix > > > > > a bug. > > > > > > > > > > BR, Jarkko > > > > > > > > Yes but I think this is only true when the flow is reasonable. If the flow > > > > itself isn't reasonable, we should fix the flow (given it's easy to fix AFAICT). > > > > > > > > Anyway, let us also hear from others. > > > > > > The flow can be made to work without issues, which in the > > > context of a bug fix is exactly what a bug fix should do. > > > Not more or less. > > > > > > You don't gain any measurable value for the user with this > > > switch idea. > > > > And besides this not proper way to review patch anyway because you did > > not review the code.  > > > > I did review the code, but I couldn't agree on the fix. That's why I expressed > my view here. > > > > I'll focus on fix what is broken e.g. so that it > > is easy to backport to stable and distro kernels, and call it a day. > > It certainly does not have to make code "perfect", as long as known > > bugs are sorted out. > > Why cannot the fix which fixes the flow go to stable? > > > > > You are welcome to review the next version of the patch, once I've > > resolved the issues that were pointed out by Reinette, if you still > > see some issue but this type of speculative discussion is frankly just > > wasting everyones time. > > Hmm.. Why pointing out a better fix (my perspective of course) is wasting > everyone's time? There was not a single inline comment. BR, Jarkko