[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal
On 2018-12-19 14:41, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 08:41:12AM +0000, Jethro Beekman wrote:
>> One weird thing is the departure from the normal mmap behavior that the
>> memory mapping persists even if the original fd is closed. (See man mmap:
>> "closing the file descriptor does not unmap the region.")
> The mmapped region and enclave would be completely disjoint to start
> with. The enclave driver code would assume that an enclave VMA exists
> when it maps enclave address space to a process.
> I.e. VMA would no longer reference to the enclave or vice versa but
> you would still create an enclave VMA with mmap().
> This is IMHO very clear and well-defined semantics.
>>> struct sgx_enclave_add_page {
>>> __u64 enclave_fd;
>>> __u64 src;
>>> __u64 secinfo;
>>> __u16 mrmask;
>>> } __attribute__((__packed__));
>> Wouldn't you just pass enclave_fd as the ioctl fd parameter?
> I'm still planning to keep the API in the device fd and use enclave_fd
> as handle to the enclave address space. I don't see any obvious reason
> to change that behavior.
> And if we ever add any "global" ioctls, then we would have to define
> APIs to both fd's, which would become a mess.
>> How to specify the address of the page that is being added?
> Yes, that is correct and my bad to remove it (just quickly drafted what
> I had in mind).

So your plan is that to call EADD, userspace has to pass the device fd
AND the enclave fd AND the enclave address? That seems a little superfluous.

Jethro Beekman | Fortanix

[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-19 10:37    [W:0.128 / U:17.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site