Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181214215729.4221-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
 <7706b2aa71312e1f0009958bcab24e1e9d8d1237.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <598cd050-f0b5-d18c-96a0-915f02525e3e@fortanix.com> <20181219091148.GA5121@linux.intel.com>
 <613c6814-4e71-38e5-444a-545f0e286df8@fortanix.com> <20181219144515.GA30909@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181219144515.GA30909@linux.intel.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:58:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrW_8LnitFamYUU7POHFOJFxLO7ESFUdS=aeG_SOvHVPkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>,
        "Dr . Greg Wettstein" <greg@enjellic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> On Dec 19, 2018, at 6:45 AM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:36:16AM +0000, Jethro Beekman 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,
> it shouldn't also need the device fd.
>
> E.g.:
>
>    sgx_fd = open("/dev/sgx", O_RDWR);
>    BUG_ON(sgx_fd < 0);
>
>    enclave_fd = ioctl(sgx_fd, SGX_ENCLAVE_CREATE, &ecreate);
>    BUG_ON(enclave_fd < 0);
>
>    ret = ioctl(enclave_fd, SGX_ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGE, &eadd);
>    BUG_ON(ret);
>
>    ...
>
>    ret = ioctl(enclave_fd, SGX_ENCLAVE_INIT, &einit);
>    BUG_ON(ret);
>
>    ...
>
>    close(enclave_fd);
>    close(sgx_fd);
>
>
> Take a look at virt/kvm/kvm_main.c to see how KVM manages anon inodes
> and ioctls for VMs and vCPUs.

Can one of you explain why SGX_ENCLAVE_CREATE is better than just
opening a new instance of /dev/sgx for each encalve?