[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3c28500f-1284-eee2-c63a-590c280b675c@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 14:00:24 -0400
From: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
"Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
ardb@...nel.org, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
luto@...capital.net, nivedita@...m.mit.edu,
kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com, trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com,
Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/14] x86: Secure Launch kernel early boot stub
On 5/15/23 21:45, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 09:11:15PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>> On 5/12/23 12:17, Ross Philipson wrote:
>>> This is a good point. At this point it is really something we
>>> overlooked. We will have to revisit this and figure out the best way to
>>> find the final event log depending on how things booted.
>>
>> I believe Ross misunderstood what you were asking for here. There are two
>> reasons this is not possible or desired. The first reason is that on Intel,
>> the DRTM log is not initialized by TrenchBoot code in the preamble. It is
>> only responsible for allocating a buffer and recording the location in the
>> TXT structures. When the SINIT ACM is executed, it will initialize the log
>> and record the measurement that CPU sent directly to the TPM and then the
>> measurements the ACM makes of the environment. If you pointed at the SRTM
>> log, then the ACM would write over existing log, which I don't think you
>> want. Now if you pointed at the tail end of the SRTM log, you would still
>> end up with a second, separate log that just happens to be memory adjacent.
>
> Ok. I think it would be clearer if either the function names or some
> comments expressly indicated that this refers to the DRTM event log and
> that that's a separate entity from the SRTM one, "event log" on its own
> is likely to cause people to think of the existing log rather than
> associate it with something else.
>
That can be done, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists