[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3ca7fa3b-f0d6-4b63-bfe4-8a30197d7261@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2023 20:47:50 -0400
From: "Mark Pearson" <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
"Jorge Lopez" <jorgealtxwork@...il.com>
Cc: "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org"
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] Introduction of HP-BIOSCFG driver [4]
Hi Jorge,
As I implemented similar on our platforms I have a couple of suggestions which may or may not be helpful.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023, at 7:58 AM, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
>
<snip>
> On 2023-03-09 14:10:22-0600, Jorge Lopez wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Many features of HP Commercial PC’s can be managed using Windows
>> Management Instrumentation (WMI). WMI is an implementation of Web-Based
>> Enterprise Management (WBEM) that provides a standards-based interface
>> for changing and monitoring system settings. HP BISOCFG driver provides
>> a native Linux solution and the exposed features facilitates the
>> migration to Linux environments.
I'd remove this paragraph personally - but as a minor note, typo in BISOCFG
<snip>
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-firmware-attributes b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-firmware-attributes
>> index 4cdba3477176..d1ae6b77da13 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-firmware-attributes
>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-firmware-attributes
<snip>
>> @@ -126,6 +133,38 @@ Description:
>> value will not be effective through sysfs until this rule is
>> met.
>>
>> + HP specific class extensions
>> + ------------------------------
>> +
>> + On HP systems the following additional attributes are available:
>> +
>> + "ordered-list"-type specific properties:
>> +
>> + elements:
>> + A file that can be read to obtain the possible
>> + list of values of the <attr>. Values are separated using
>> + semi-colon (``;``). The order individual elements are listed
>> + according to their priority. An Element listed first has the
>> + hightest priority. Writing the list in a different order to
>> + current_value alters the priority order for the particular
>> + attribute.
isn't this already covered in the 'possible_values' attribute - it's just a string of items? Curious as to when/how this would be used instead of possible_values (but I should probably read the code)
Typo in 'hightest'.
<snip>
>
>> +
>> +
>> What: /sys/class/firmware-attributes/*/authentication/
>> Date: February 2021
>> KernelVersion: 5.11
>> @@ -206,7 +245,7 @@ Description:
<snip>
>> @@ -296,6 +335,15 @@ Description:
>> echo "signature" > authentication/Admin/signature
>> echo "password" > authentication/Admin/certificate_to_password
>>
>> + HP specific class extensions
>> + --------------------------------
>> +
>> + On HP systems the following additional settings are available:
>> +
>> + role: enhanced-bios-auth:
>> + This role is specific to Secure Platform Management (SPM) attribute.
>> + It requires configuring an endorsement (kek) and signing certificate (sk).
>> +
Your implementation might be different on HP's; but on the Lenovo's this was still used along with the regular roles - it's just the authentication changed from password to a signature approach.
Just checking that you really need a whole new role and that it isn't part of the existing role.
<snip>
>> + HP specific class extensions
>> + --------------------------------
>> +
>> +What: /sys/class/firmware-attributes/*/authentication/SPM/kek
>> +Date: March 29
>> +KernelVersion: 5.18
>> +Contact: "Jorge Lopez" <jorge.lopez2@...com>
>> +Description: 'kek' is a write-only file that can be used to configure the
>> + RSA public key that will be used by the BIOS to verify
>> + signatures when setting the signing key. When written,
>> + the bytes should correspond to the KEK certificate
>> + (x509 .DER format containing an OU). The size of the
>> + certificate must be less than or equal to 4095 bytes.
>> +
>> +
>> +What: /sys/class/firmware-attributes/*/authentication/SPM/sk
>> +Date: March 29
>> +KernelVersion: 5.18
>> +Contact: "Jorge Lopez" <jorge.lopez2@...com>
>> +Description: 'sk' is a write-only file that can be used to configure the RSA
>> + public key that will be used by the BIOS to verify signatures
>> + when configuring BIOS settings and security features. When
>> + written, the bytes should correspond to the modulus of the
>> + public key. The exponent is assumed to be 0x10001.
>
I wondered if these could be combined with the signature and certificate fields that I implemented for the Lenovo platforms - and those be moved out of the Lenovo specific section and then made general (and optional)
kek looks like it corresponds to certificate and sk to signature?
>
>> +
>> +
>> +What: /sys/class/firmware-attributes/*/attributes/last_error
>> +Date: March 29
>> +KernelVersion: 5.18
>> +Contact: "Jorge Lopez" <jorge.lopez2@...com>
>> +Description: 'last_error' is a read-only file that returns WMI error number
>> + and message reported by last WMI command.
>
> Does this provide much value?
> Or could this error just be logged via pr_warn_ratelimited()?
This one seemed odd to me too - doesn't the driver return the error to the use on a failed WMI access?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists