On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 10:25:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > 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 > > enclave. > > > > 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 > > involved. > > Based on these observations I updated the uapi. > > As far as I'm concerned there has to be a solution to do EPC mapping > with a sequence: > > 1. Ping /dev/kvm to do something. > 2. KVM asks SGX core to do something. > 3. SGX core does something. > > I don't care what the something is exactly is, but KVM is the only sane > place for KVM uapi. I would be surprised if KVM maintainers didn't agree > that they don't want to sprinkle KVM uapi to random places in other > subsystems. The one option to consider to do would be to have a device driver for KVM if you really want this e.g. something like /dev/vsgx. With the current knowledge I'm not yet sure why all could not be done just through /dev/kvm. /Jarkko
