linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/12] x86: Secure Launch Kconfig

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f07c2eef-dbd7-02e4-c0ab-5b894003923c@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:42:01 -0400
From:   Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
To:     Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
        trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/12] x86: Secure Launch Kconfig

On 3/26/20 2:06 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:43:06PM -0400, Ross Philipson wrote:
>> Initial bits to bring in Secure Launch functionality. Add Kconfig
>> options for compiling in/out the Secure Launch code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> index 5e8949953660..7f3406a9948b 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> @@ -2014,6 +2014,17 @@ config EFI_MIXED
>>
>>  	   If unsure, say N.
>>
>> +config SECURE_LAUNCH
>> +	bool "Secure Launch support"
>> +	default n
>> +	depends on X86_64
>> +	help
>> +	  This Secure Launch kernel feature allows a bzImage to be loaded
>> +	  directly through Intel TXT or AMD SKINIT measured launch. This
> 
> I think that you should drop AMD SKINIT from here. This should be added
> when AMD secure launch implementation is added.

Yea will do.

> 
> ...and why we need this as separate patch? Could not we add this in
> a patch which uses CONFIG_SECURE_LAUNCH for first time?

So it used to be part of a bigger patch but it ended up shrinking down
to this when kernel_info was introduced. The first patch to use it is
the SHA patch but that seems a weird place to introduce it. Will have to
think about it...

> 
> Daniel
>