[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200306185804.GE7472@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 20:58:04 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dave.hansen@...el.com, nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com,
haitao.huang@...el.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, kai.svahn@...el.com, bp@...en8.de,
josh@...htriplett.org, luto@...nel.org, kai.huang@...el.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, cedric.xing@...el.com, puiterwijk@...hat.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
Chunyang Hui <sanqian.hcy@...fin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v28 11/22] x86/sgx: Linux Enclave Driver
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 09:40:15AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Would it make sense to add reserved fields to the structs so that new
> features can be added in a backwards compatible way? E.g. if we want to
> allow userspace to control the backing store by passing in a file
> descriptor ENCLAVE_CREATE.
It would not really be a huge win even if you did that since old
software would not be aware of the new fields. Sounds somewhat
messy to me.
Even a new ioctl later on is in my opinion always a better option
than reserved fields when you add ioctl's.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists