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,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 D59C5C433E0 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A288C23359 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731315AbhAOOoG (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 09:44:06 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:37443 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725910AbhAOOoG (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 09:44:06 -0500 IronPort-SDR: mnoeSRfLYLv5wvn1xXwNqE7pcPg4ae+o0bNrMhH2Fu/goX/7WPsPmxmvfT0SrmFfP6AD9AnW27 1vH1/4BrEJFA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9864"; a="197222870" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,349,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="197222870" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jan 2021 06:43:25 -0800 IronPort-SDR: eflR4KatMJrsfWwRaQOCwkoZCwYrX+93asKiciwWpSso1xfx+z3lRCaE8IB+4Ji1CBSw9cDgvi jX3ApRf5S63Q== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,349,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="499939478" Received: from sanjanar-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.251.19.188]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jan 2021 06:43:21 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/23] KVM SGX virtualization support From: Kai Huang To: Jarkko Sakkinen 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 Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 03:43:18 +1300 In-Reply-To: <20210112150756.f3fb039ac1bb176262da5e52@intel.com> References: <2422737f6b0cddf6ff1be9cf90e287dd00d6a6a3.camel@kernel.org> <20210112141428.038533b6cd5f674c906a3c43@intel.com> <20210112150756.f3fb039ac1bb176262da5e52@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3 (3.38.3-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org 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?