Re: [PATCH v5 12/18] x86/sgx: Add EPC OOM path to forcefully reclaim EPC

[Huang, Kai]

On Tue, 2023-10-10 at 12:05 -0500, Haitao Huang wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 21:12:27 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > Later the hosting process could migrated/reassigned to another  
> > > cgroup?
> > > > > What to do when the new cgroup is OOM?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > You addressed in the documentation, no?
> > > > 
> > > > +Migration
> > > > +---------
> > > > +
> > > > +Once an EPC page is charged to a cgroup (during allocation), it
> > > > +remains charged to the original cgroup until the page is released
> > > > +or reclaimed.  Migrating a process to a different cgroup doesn't
> > > > +move the EPC charges that it incurred while in the previous cgroup
> > > > +to its new cgroup.
> > > 
> > > Should we kill the enclave though because some VA pages may be in the  
> > > new
> > > group?
> > > 
> > 
> > I guess acceptable?
> > 
> > And any difference if you keep VA/SECS to unreclaimabe list?
> 
> Tracking VA/SECS allows all cgroups, in which an enclave has allocation,  
> to identify the enclave following the back pointer and kill it as needed.
> 
> > If you migrate one
> > enclave to another cgroup, the old EPC pages stay in the old cgroup  
> > while the
> > new one is charged to the new group IIUC.
> > 
> > I am not cgroup expert, but by searching some old thread it appears this  
> > isn't a
> > supported model:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YEyR9181Qgzt+Ps9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> 
> IIUC it's a different problem here. If we don't track the allocated VAs in  
> the new group, then the enclave that spans the two groups can't be killed  
> by the new group. If so, some enclave could just hide in some small group  
> and never gets killed but keeps allocating in a different group?
> 

I mean from the link above IIUC migrating enclave among different cgroups simply
isn't a supported model, thus any bad behaviour isn't a big concern in terms of
decision making.