lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: SGX vs LSM (Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support)
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 02:41:05PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 05:26:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Is userspace actually requred to mmap() the enclave prior to EADDing things?
>
> Nope, not since v20. Here is what I wrote about API to the kernel
> documentation:
>
> "The enclave life-cycle starts by opening `/dev/sgx/enclave`. After this
> there is already a data structure inside kernel tracking the enclave
> that is initially uncreated. After this a set of ioctl's can be used to
> create, populate and initialize the enclave.
>
> You can close (if you want) the fd after you've mmap()'d. As long as the
> file is open the enclave stays alive so you might want to do that after
> you don't need it anymore. Even munmap() won't destruct the enclave if
> the file is open. Neither will closing the fd as long as you have
> mmap() done over the fd (even if it does not across the range defined in
> SECS)."
>
> Enclave can be created and initialized without doing a single mmap()
> call.

We could even disallow mmap() before EINIT done. The way enclave
management internally works right now is quite robust and completely
detached from requiring process address space for anything.

/Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-21 17:20    [W:0.202 / U:42.632 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site