Re: x86/sgx: uapi change proposal

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 10:25:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:32:04PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Sean, is this why you wanted enclave fd and anon inode and not just use
> > the address space of /dev/sgx? Just taking notes of all observations.
> > I'm not sure what your rationale was (maybe it was somewhere). This was
> > something I made up, and this one is wrong deduction. You can easily
> > get the same benefit with /dev/sgx associated fd representing the
> > enclave.
> > 
> > This all means that for v19 I'm going without enclave fd involved with
> > fd to /dev/sgx representing the enclave. No anon inodes will be
> > involved.
> 
> Based on these observations I updated the uapi.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned there has to be a solution to do EPC mapping
> with a sequence:
> 
> 1. Ping /dev/kvm to do something.
> 2. KVM asks SGX core to do something.
> 3. SGX core does something.
> 
> I don't care what the something is exactly is, but KVM is the only sane
> place for KVM uapi. I would be surprised if KVM maintainers didn't agree
> that they don't want to sprinkle KVM uapi to random places in other
> subsystems.

The one option to consider to do would be to have a device driver for
KVM if you really want this e.g. something like /dev/vsgx. With the
current knowledge I'm not yet sure why all could not be done just
through /dev/kvm.

/Jarkko