On 12/17/18 11:12 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > So I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it the way you are now, but I > do think that the changelog or at least some emails should explain > *why* the enclave needs to keep a pointer to the creating process's > mm. And, if you do keep the current model, it would be nice to > understand what happens if you do something awful like mremap()ing an > enclave, or calling madvise on it, or otherwise abusing the vma. Or > doing fork(), for that matter. Yeah, the code is built to have one VMA and only one VMA per enclave. You need to go over the origin of this restriction and what enforces this.
