[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181220103204.GB26410@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 12:32:04 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
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>,
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 06:58:48PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Can one of you explain why SGX_ENCLAVE_CREATE is better than just
> opening a new instance of /dev/sgx for each encalve?
I think that fits better to the SCM_RIGHTS scenario i.e. you could send
the enclav to a process that does not have necessarily have rights to
/dev/sgx. Gives more robust environment to configure SGX.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists