On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:29:23PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I would say it differently: regardless of exactly how /dev/sgx/enclave > is wired up under the hood, we want a way that a process can be > granted permission to usefully run enclaves without being granted > permission to execute whatever bytes of code it wants. Preferably > without requiring LSMs to maintain some form of enclave signature > whitelist. Would it be better to have a signer whitelist instead or some combination? E.g. you could whiteliste either by signer or enclave signature. /Jarkko
