[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:32:04PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 06:58:48PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Can one of you explain why SGX_ENCLAVE_CREATE is better than just
> > opening a new instance of /dev/sgx for each encalve?
> I think that fits better to the SCM_RIGHTS scenario i.e. you could send
> the enclav to a process that does not have necessarily have rights to
> /dev/sgx. Gives more robust environment to configure SGX.

Sean, is this why you wanted enclave fd and anon inode and not just use
the address space of /dev/sgx? Just taking notes of all observations.
I'm not sure what your rationale was (maybe it was somewhere). This was
something I made up, and this one is wrong deduction. You can easily
get the same benefit with /dev/sgx associated fd representing the

This all means that for v19 I'm going without enclave fd involved with
fd to /dev/sgx representing the enclave. No anon inodes will be


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-22 18:39    [W:0.300 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site