Re: [PATCH v38 11/24] x86/sgx: Add SGX enclave driver

[Sean Christopherson]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:28:29PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> +int __init sgx_drv_init(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> +	u64 attr_mask, xfrm_mask;
> +	int ret;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SGX_LC)) {
> +		pr_info("The public key MSRs are not writable.\n");
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +
> +	cpuid_count(SGX_CPUID, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> +	sgx_misc_reserved_mask = ~ebx | SGX_MISC_RESERVED_MASK;
> +	sgx_encl_size_max_64 = 1ULL << ((edx >> 8) & 0xFF);
> +	sgx_encl_size_max_32 = 1ULL << (edx & 0xFF);
> +
> +	cpuid_count(SGX_CPUID, 1, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> +
> +	attr_mask = (((u64)ebx) << 32) + (u64)eax;
> +	sgx_attributes_reserved_mask = ~attr_mask | SGX_ATTR_RESERVED_MASK;
> +
> +	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSXSAVE)) {
> +		xfrm_mask = (((u64)edx) << 32) + (u64)ecx;
> +
> +		for (i = 2; i < 64; i++) {
> +			cpuid_count(0x0D, i, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> +			if ((1UL << i) & xfrm_mask)

Any reason not to use BIT()?  The max size computations are arguably not
bit operation, but XFRM is a set of bits.

> +				sgx_xsave_size_tbl[i] = eax + ebx;
> +		}
> +
> +		sgx_xfrm_reserved_mask = ~xfrm_mask;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = misc_register(&sgx_dev_enclave);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		pr_err("Creating /dev/sgx/enclave failed with %d.\n", ret);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}