5:16 p.m.
The only concern I have at this point s any of the features such
that
it couldn't be postponed after upstreaming? I'm targetting patches
hopefully for 4.13 so I rather fix regressions than add new
functionality as you probably understand.
As long as we don't inadvertently create user ABI that needs to be
changed I think that's fine. I think before anything will be accepted
upstream we need to at least figure out the mmap story as described in
my second email yesterday.
Anyway with quick skim at least some of your proposals made sense.
Would you be interested to contribute some of this post upstreaming?
Yes, I can work on implementing these changes.
Jethro Beekman | Fortanix
On 2017-03-23 08:02, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:26:30PM -0700, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> In order to provide the ability to debug enclaves independently of their
> programming model, while supporting live attach (meaning the debugger might
> not have seen enclave creation), a debugger needs to following capabilities
> for a debugged process:
I have to read this with thought later on. That's why I don't want to
say anything *right now*.
The only concern I have at this point s any of the features such that it
couldn't be postponed after upstreaming? I'm targetting patches
hopefully for 4.13 so I rather fix regressions than add new
functionality as you probably understand.
Anyway with quick skim at least some of your proposals made sense. Would
you be interested to contribute some of this post upstreaming?
/Jarkko