On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:50:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 2:18 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In order to provide a mechanism for devilering provisoning rights:
> >
> > 1. Add a new file to the securityfs file called sgx/provision that works
> > as a token for allowing an enclave to have the provisioning privileges.
> > 2. Add a new ioctl called SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_SET_ATTRIBUTE that accepts the
> > following data structure:
> >
> > struct sgx_enclave_set_attribute {
> > __u64 addr;
> > __u64 token_fd;
> > };
>
> Here's a potential issue:
>
> For container use, is it reasonable for a container manager to
> bind-mount a file into securityfs? Or would something in /dev make
> this easier?
I guess that is a valid point given that the securityfs contains the LSM
(e.g. SELinux or AppArmor) policy. So yeah, I think your are right what
you say.
I propose that we create /dev/sgx/enclave to act as the enclave manager
and /dev/sgx/provision for provisioning. Is this sustainable for you?
/Jarkko
