Re: [PATCH 3/6] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Secure Guard eXtensions

2016-04-29 Thread Jethro Beekman
On 29-04-16 13:04, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> Why would you want to do that? >> >> ... > > Do you see this as a performance issue or why do you think that this > would hurt that much? I don't think it's a performance issue at all. I'm just giving an example of why you'd want to do this. I'm sure p

Re: [PATCH 3/6] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Secure Guard eXtensions

2016-04-27 Thread Jethro Beekman
On 27-04-16 05:40, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> The hardware supports calling EEXTEND on only a part of a page, I think the >> driver should also support that. > > Why would you want to do that? You might have segments in a binary that don't start at the beginning of a page or that end before the end

Re: [PATCH 6/6] intel_sgx: TODO file for the staging area

2016-04-27 Thread Jethro Beekman
On 26-04-16 04:23, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > In order to write test code I would need to use the SDK at minimum to > generate EINITTOKEN for the test enclave. You could do this right now with the Rust tools for SGX [1] [1] https://github.com/jethrogb/sgx-utils/ > /Jarkko Jethro

Re: [PATCH 3/6] intel_sgx: driver for Intel Secure Guard eXtensions

2016-04-26 Thread Jethro Beekman
On 25-04-16 10:34, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/staging/intel_sgx/isgx_ioctl.c b/drivers/staging/intel_sgx/isgx_ioctl.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000..9d8b36b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/staging/intel_sgx/isgx_ioctl.c > > +static long isgx_ioctl_enclave_create(struct f