On 7/14/2017 7:37 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 13/07/17 07:42, Huang, Kai wrote:
On 7/12/2017 10:56 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 09/07/17 10:10, Kai Huang wrote:
Why do we need this hide_epc parameter? If we aren't providing any
epc resource to the guest, the entire sgx union should be zero
>>> On 14.07.17 at 09:37, wrote:
> On 13/07/17 07:42, Huang, Kai wrote:
>> On 7/12/2017 10:56 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 09/07/17 10:10, Kai Huang wrote:
+/* Subleaf 2. */
+uint32_t base_valid:1, :11, base_pfn_low:20;
+uint32_t base_pfn_high:
On 13/07/17 07:42, Huang, Kai wrote:
On 7/12/2017 10:56 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 09/07/17 10:10, Kai Huang wrote:
Why do we need this hide_epc parameter? If we aren't providing any
epc resource to the guest, the entire sgx union should be zero and
the SGX feature bit should be hidden.
M
On 7/12/2017 10:56 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 09/07/17 10:10, Kai Huang wrote:
This patch adds SGX to cpuid handling support. In init_guest_cpuid, for
raw_policy and host_policy, physical EPC info is reported, but for
pv_max_policy
and hvm_max_policy EPC is hidden, as for particular domain,
On 09/07/17 10:10, Kai Huang wrote:
This patch adds SGX to cpuid handling support. In init_guest_cpuid, for
raw_policy and host_policy, physical EPC info is reported, but for pv_max_policy
and hvm_max_policy EPC is hidden, as for particular domain, it's EPC base and
size are from tookstack, and i
This patch adds SGX to cpuid handling support. In init_guest_cpuid, for
raw_policy and host_policy, physical EPC info is reported, but for pv_max_policy
and hvm_max_policy EPC is hidden, as for particular domain, it's EPC base and
size are from tookstack, and it is meaningless to contain physical E
