On 12/11/21 12:02 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 13:48 -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote: >>> I'd suggest to change this as SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPE. >> How about SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MOD_TYPE to be consistent with your earlier >> suggestion of SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MOD_PROTECTIONS ? > I think it would be best to introduce only one new ioctl that would > be capable of doing either operation (and use secinfo as a vessel > for additional data). Why? I don't think we should try to multiplex within an ioctl(). Just create a second ioctl().
