From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 18/23] platform/x86: Intel SGX driver Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:04:36 -0800 Message-ID: <20181126230436.GA6737@linux.intel.com> References: <20181119161917.GF13298@linux.intel.com> <20181120120442.GA22172@linux.intel.com> <20181122111253.GA31150@wind.enjellic.com> <20181124172114.GB32210@linux.intel.com> <20181125145329.GA5777@linux.intel.com> <0669C300-02CB-4EA6-BF88-5C4B4DDAD4C7@amacapital.net> <20181126215145.GC868@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181126215145.GC868@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Andy Lutomirski , "Dr. Greg Wettstein" , X86 ML , Platform Driver , linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen , "Christopherson, Sean J" , nhorman@redhat.com, npmccallum@redhat.com, "Ayoun, Serge" , shay.katz-zamir@intel.com, haitao.huang@linux.intel.com, Andy Shevchenko , Thomas Gleixner , "Svahn, Kai" , mark.shanahan@intel.com, Suresh Siddha , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 01:51:45PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > ioctl(sgx, SGX_IOC_ADD_RIGHT, sgx_provisioning); > > > > This requires extra syscalls, but it doesn’t have the combinatorial > > explosion problem. > > I like this design because it is extendable. I'm now also in the same > page why we need to protect provisioning in the first place. I would > slight restructure this as > > /dev/sgx/control > /dev/sgx/attributes/provision I guess it would be OK to upstream only control node first as long as provision attribute is denied in order to keep the already huge patch set a tiny bit smaller? /Jarkko