Hi Jarkko, On 4/5/2022 11:41 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 10:05 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> Hi Jarkko, >> >> On 4/5/2022 8:34 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 10:06 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> >>>>> >>>> >>>> To be coherent with other names, this should be >>>> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPES. >> >> This is not such a clear change request to me: >> >> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGES - add multiple pages >> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RESTRICT_PERMISSIONS - restrict multiple permissions >> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_REMOVE_PAGES - remove multiple pages >> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPE - set a single type >> >> Perhaps it should rather be SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_SET_TYPE to indicate that >> there is a single target type as opposed to the possibility >> of multiple source types (TCS and regular pages can be trimmed). >> >>> What is your opinion about what the ioctl() name should be? I prefer to obtain a confirmation from you since you originally [1] requested SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPE. >>> This should take only page type given that flags are zeroed: >>> >>> EPCM(DS:RCX).R := 0; >>> EPCM(DS:RCX).W := 0; >>> EPCM(DS:RCX).X := 0; >>> >> >> ok, this was how it was done in V1 [1] and I can go back to that. > > I would name the fields as "flags" and "page_type" just to align > names with SGX instead of trying to mimim "posix names". Otherwise, > I support that. I will move this ioctl() to use "page_type" instead of "secinfo" within struct sgx_enclave_modify_type. Your guidance of "flags" is not clear to me. I assume that you refer to the field for struct sgx_enclave_restrict_permissions where I think "permissions" to only contain the new permissions would be more appropriate. None of the other values in secinfo.flags are relevant. Reinette [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/Yav9g4+L8zg48DRf@xxxxxx/
