Re: [PATCH 3/6] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Secure Guard eXtensions

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:22:19PM -0700, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> On 29-04-16 13:04, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> Why would you want to do that?
> >>
> >> ...
> >
> > Do you see this as a performance issue or why do you think that this
> > would hurt that much?
> 
> I don't think it's a performance issue at all. I'm just giving an example of why
> you'd want to do this. I'm sure people who want to use this instruction set can
> come up with other uses, so I think the driver should support it. Other drivers
> on different platform might support this, in which case we should be compatible
> (to achieve the same enclave measurement). Other Linux drivers support it [1]. I
> would ask: why would you not want to do this? It seems trivial to expand the
> current flag into 16 separate flags; one for each 256-byte chunk in the page.

I'm fine with adding a 16-bit bitmask.

/Jarkko