[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YcGVzsXmHrijKaFz@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:52:30 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
luto@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, seanjc@...gle.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
cathy.zhang@...el.com, cedric.xing@...el.com,
haitao.huang@...el.com, mark.shanahan@...el.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/25] x86/sgx: Support modifying SGX page type
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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().
I'm fine with 2 ioctls.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists