On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:34:48AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 07:23:19PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > Also, you had all patches until now split nice and logically doing one > > thing only. > > > > But this one is huge. Why? > > > > Why can't you split out the facilities which the driver uses: encl.[ch] > > into a patch, then ioctl.c into a separate one and then the driver into > > a third one? Or do they all belong together inseparably? > > > > I guess I'll find out eventually but it would've been nice if they were > > split out... > > Hmm, I think the most reasonable way to break up this beast would be to > incrementally introduce functionality. E.g. four or so patches, one for > each ioctl() of ENCLAVE_CREATE, ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGES, ENCLAVE_INIT and > ENCLAVE_SET_ATTRIBUTE, in that order. > > Splitting up by file probably wouldn't work very well. The split is > pretty arbitrary, e.g. encl.[ch] isn't simply a pure representation of an > enclave, there is a lot of the driver details/dependencies in there, i.e. > the functionality between encl/ioctl/driver is all pretty intertwined. > > But I think serially introducing each ioctl() would be fairly clean, and > would help readers/reviewers better understand SGX as the patches would > naturally document the process of building an enclave, e.g. CREATE the > enclave, then ADD_PAGES, then INIT the enclave. SET_ATTRIBUTE is a bit > of an outlier in that it would be chronologically out of order with > respect to building the enclave, but I think that's ok. > > Jarkko, thoughts? I proposed the same before I go this email so I guess we have a consensus here. /Jarkko
