lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 6:45 AM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:36:16AM +0000, Jethro Beekman wrote:

> I agree with Jethro, passing the enclave_fd as a param is obnoxious.
> And it means the user needs to open /dev/sgx to do anything with an
> enclave fd, e.g. the enclave fd might be passed to a builder thread,
> it shouldn't also need the device fd.
>
> E.g.:
>
> sgx_fd = open("/dev/sgx", O_RDWR);
> BUG_ON(sgx_fd < 0);
>
> enclave_fd = ioctl(sgx_fd, SGX_ENCLAVE_CREATE, &ecreate);
> BUG_ON(enclave_fd < 0);
>
> ret = ioctl(enclave_fd, SGX_ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGE, &eadd);
> BUG_ON(ret);
>
> ...
>
> ret = ioctl(enclave_fd, SGX_ENCLAVE_INIT, &einit);
> BUG_ON(ret);
>
> ...
>
> close(enclave_fd);
> close(sgx_fd);
>
>
> Take a look at virt/kvm/kvm_main.c to see how KVM manages anon inodes
> and ioctls for VMs and vCPUs.

Can one of you explain why SGX_ENCLAVE_CREATE is better than just
opening a new instance of /dev/sgx for each encalve?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-20 04:00    [W:0.109 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site