On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 14:44 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > So I really don't think an ioctl would be a great user experience. Same > for a sysfs file - although that's probably slightly better than the ioctl. What would be wrong with a sysfs file ? Another way to approach that makes sense from a kernel perspective is to have the user first offline the CPUs, then "donate" them to the driver via a sysfs file. > Other options I can think of: > > * sysctl (for modules?) Why would that be any good ? If anything sysctl's are even more awkward in my book :) > * module parameter (as implemented here) > * proc file (deprecated FWIW) Yeah no. > The key is the tenant split: Admin sets the pool up, user consumes. This > setup should happen (early) on boot, so that system services can spawn > enclaves. Right and you can have some init script or udev rule that sets that up from a sys admin produced config file at boot upon detection of the enclave PCI device for example. > > module parameters are a major pain, you know this :) > > I think in this case it's the least painful option ;). But I'm really > happy to hear about an actually good alternative to it. Right now, I > just can't think of any. Cheers, Ben.
