Re: [PATCH V3 17/30] x86/sgx: Support modifying SGX page type

[Reinette Chatre]

Hi Jarkko,

On 4/6/2022 12:32 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 11:59 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Jarkko,
>>
>> On 4/5/2022 11:41 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 10:05 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>> Hi Jarkko,
>>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2022 8:34 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 10:06 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be coherent with other names, this should be
>>>>>> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPES.
>>>>
>>>> This is not such a clear change request to me:
>>>>
>>>> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_ADD_PAGES - add multiple pages
>>>> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_RESTRICT_PERMISSIONS - restrict multiple permissions
>>>> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_REMOVE_PAGES - remove multiple pages
>>>> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPE - set a single type
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it should rather be SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_SET_TYPE to indicate that
>>>> there is a single target type as opposed to the possibility
>>>> of multiple source types (TCS and regular pages can be trimmed).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> What is your opinion about what the ioctl() name should be? I prefer
>> to obtain a confirmation from you since you originally [1] requested
>> SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPE.
> 
> s/TYPE/TYPES/g i.e. SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_MODIFY_TYPES is fine.

ok, thank you for confirming, will do.

>>
>>>>> This should take only page type given that flags are zeroed:
>>>>>
>>>>> EPCM(DS:RCX).R := 0;
>>>>> EPCM(DS:RCX).W := 0;
>>>>> EPCM(DS:RCX).X := 0; 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ok, this was how it was done in V1 [1] and I can go back to that.
>>>
>>> I would name the fields as "flags" and "page_type" just to align
>>> names with SGX instead of trying to mimim "posix names". Otherwise, 
>>> I support that.
>>
>> I will move this ioctl() to use "page_type" instead of "secinfo"
>> within struct sgx_enclave_modify_type.
>>
>> Your guidance of "flags" is not clear to me. I assume that you
>> refer to the field for struct sgx_enclave_restrict_permissions
>> where I think "permissions" to only contain the new permissions
>> would be more appropriate. None of the other values in
>> secinfo.flags are relevant.
> 
> I'm fine with your permissions field to the restrict ioctl.

Will do, thank you.

Reinette