[RFC PATCH 2/9] x86/sgx: Do not naturally align MAP_FIXED address

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 09:47:06AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > From: Jarkko Sakkinen [mailto:jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 6:48 AM
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:37:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:14:04PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 5, 2019, at 8:17 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 10:10:22PM +0000, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> > > > >> A bit off topic here. This mmap()/mprotect() discussion reminds
> > > > >> me a question (guess for Jarkko): Now that
> > > > >> vma->vm_file->private_data keeps a pointer to the enclave, why do
> > we store it again in vma->vm_private?
> > > > >> It isn't a big deal but non-NULL vm_private does prevent
> > > > >> mprotect() from merging adjacent VMAs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Same semantics as with a regular mmap i.e. you can close the file
> > > > > and still use the mapping.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The file should be properly refcounted — vm_file should not go away
> > while it’s mapped.
> > 
> > mm already takes care of that so vm_file does not go away. Still we need
> > an internal refcount for enclaves to synchronize with the swapper. In
> > summary nothing needs to be done.
> 
> I don't get this. The swapper takes a read lock on mm->mmap_sem, which locks
> the vma, which in turn reference counts vma->vm_file. Why is the internal
> refcount still needed? 

mmap_sem is only held when reclaim is touching PTEs, e.g. to test/clear
its accessed bit and to zap the PTE.  The liveliness of the enclave needs
to be guaranteed for the entire duration of reclaim, e.g. we can't have
the enclave disappearing when we go to do EWB.  It's also worth nothing
that a single reclaim may operate on more than one mmap_sem, as enclaves
can be shared across processes (mm_structs).