linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/6] selftests: tdx: Test GetReport TDX attestation feature

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: <34e60402a0e9223ce241d022dead94a5074f5436.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 02 Aug 2022 12:08:55 +1200
From:   Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc:     "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>,
        Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
        marcelo.cerri@...onical.com, tim.gardner@...onical.com,
        khalid.elmously@...onical.com, philip.cox@...onical.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/6] selftests: tdx: Test GetReport TDX attestation
 feature

On Mon, 2022-08-01 at 10:49 -0700, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote:
> > 
> > Btw, as it appears you only verified reportdata below, is it worth to have
> > all
> > those data structures (and they are used by hardware but not __packed)? 
> > Perhaps
> > a macro to define REPORTDATA offset in TDREPORT is good enough?  Or maybe I
> > am
> > missing something.
> 
> I have added these data structs to make it easier for readers to understand
> the contents of the TDREPORT. I thought a simple offset based check would look
> like a magic number. If the maintainers are fine with offset based comparison,
> I am ok with it.

They need to be __packed, at least.

-- 
Thanks,
-Kai