> > > > Can one of you explain why SGX_ENCLAVE_CREATE is better than just > > opening a new instance of /dev/sgx for each encalve? > > Directly associating /dev/sgx with an enclave means /dev/sgx can't be used > to provide ioctl()'s for other SGX-related needs, e.g. to mmap() raw EPC and > expose it a VM. Proposed layout in the link below. I'll also respond to > Jarkko's question about exposing EPC through /dev/sgx instead of having > KVM allocate it on behalf of the VM. > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Hi Sean, Sorry for replying to old email. But IMHO it is not a must that Qemu needs to open some /dev/sgx and allocate/mmap EPC for guest's virtual EPC slot, instead, KVM could create private slot, which is not visible to Qemu, for virtual EPC, and KVM could call core-SGX EPC allocation API directly. I am not sure what's the good of allowing userspace to alloc/mmap a raw EPC region? Userspace is not allowed to touch EPC anyway, expect enclave code. To me KVM creates private EPC slot is cleaner than exposing /dev/sgx/epc and allowing userspace to map some raw EPC region. Thanks, -Kai
