Re: [patch 01/10] x86/fpu/signal: Clarify exception handling in restore_fpregs_from_user()

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, Sep 02 2021 at 16:08, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-09-01 at 16:47 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> As for SGX consuming the trap number in general, it's correct.  For non-KVM usage,
>> it's nice to have but not strictly necessary.  Any fault except #PF on ENCLS is
>> guaranteed to be a kernel or hardware bug; SGX uses the trap number to WARN on a
>> !#PF exception, e.g. on #GP or #UD.  Not having the trap number would mean losing
>> those sanity checks, which have been useful in the past.
>
> AFAIK, we do not consider #UD as a bug. Agree with the conclusion that SGX
> should never #MC, I just did not get this part. #UD is something that is
> useful for SGX run-time.

I understood that storing the trap number is useful. I was just
questioning the #MC angle. I.e. pretending that the #MC caused by ENCLS
is recoverable.

Thanks,

        tglx