[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXE9WrBOUG6MRQ90cMH_NvvCw_jVCar5Dsj+gkZr1AA0MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 09:12:19 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
Alec Brown <alec.r.brown@...cle.com>,
Kanth Ghatraju <kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com>,
Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>,
"dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>,
"piotr.krol@...eb.com" <piotr.krol@...eb.com>,
"krystian.hebel@...eb.com" <krystian.hebel@...eb.com>,
"persaur@...il.com" <persaur@...il.com>,
"Yoder, Stuart" <stuart.yoder@....com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"michal.zygowski@...eb.com" <michal.zygowski@...eb.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"lukasz@...rylko.pl" <lukasz@...rylko.pl>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
The development of GNU GRUB <grub-devel@....org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: Linux DRTM on UEFI platforms
On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 09:11, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 09:02:18AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be better for the secure launch kernel to boot the EFI
> > entrypoint directly? As it happens, I just completed a PoC last week
> > for a minimal implementation of EFI (in Rust) that only carries the
> > pieces that the EFI stub needs to boot Linux. It is currently just a
> > proof of concept that only works on QEMU/arm64, but it should not be
> > too hard to adapt it for x86 and for booting a kernel that has already
> > been loaded to memory.
>
> The EFI stub carries out a bunch of actions that have meaningful
> security impact, and that's material that should be measured. Having the
> secure launch kernel execute the stub without awareness of what it does
> means it would need to measure the code without measuring the state,
> while the goal of DRTM solutions is to measure state rather than the
> code.
But how is that any different from the early kernel code?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists