Re: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Dec 19, 2018, at 6:45 AM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> 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?