On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 04:55:03PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > Hmm.. on 2nd thought the LSM policy or even DAC policy would restrict > > > that the container manager can only access specific files inside > > > securityfs. With this conclusion I still think it is probably the best > > > place for seurity policy like things even for SGX. It is meant for that > > > anyway. > > > > > > > LSM or DAC policy can certainly *restrict* it, but I suspect that most > > container runtimes don't mount securityfs at all. OTOH, the runtime > > definitely needs to have a way to pass /dev/sgx/enclave (or whatever > > it's called) through, so using another device node will definitely > > work. > > OK, I can cope with this argument. I go with the device names above for > v20. In v20 the refactoring would be with corresponding modes: /dev/sgx 0755 /dev/sgx/enclave 0666 /dev/sgx/provision 0600 The problem that I'm facing is that with devnode callback of struct device_type I can easily give the defaut mode for any of the files but not for the /dev/sgx directory itself. How do I get the appropriate mode for it? /Jarkko
