[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181220103017.GA26410@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:30:17 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dr . Greg Wettstein" <greg@...ellic.com>
Subject: Re: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 06:45:15AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> I agree with Jethro, passing the enclave_fd as a param is obnoxious.
> And it means the user needs to open /dev/sgx to do anything with an
> enclave fd, e.g. the enclave fd might be passed to a builder thread,
Please note that this is not really a thing that I care that much in the
end of the day because either approach is straight forward to implement.
That is why asked from Jethro, which is more superfluous.
> Take a look at virt/kvm/kvm_main.c to see how KVM manages anon inodes
> and ioctls for VMs and vCPUs.
I actually grabbed anon inode code from in-kernel LE code and started to
transform it to this framework just because I was familiar with that
snippet (because I wrote it) but yeah the idea is similar as in there.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists