linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 04/14] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file

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]

Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:01:09 -0400
From:   "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:     Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/14] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file

On 5/15/23 21:43, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 08:41:00PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>> On 5/15/23 17:22, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> What if I don't use grub, but use something that behaves equivalently?
>>> Which value should be used here?
>>
>> Generally we would request that the bootloader submit a request to register
>> for a value to be reserved in the spec. That aside, the intent here is to
>> allow for the possibility for the DLE handler to be independent from the
>> bootloader, but this does not have to be this way. If a non-open entity
>> decides to produce their own implementation, they can freely use a
>> unallocated value at their own risk that it could be allocated to another
>> bootloader in the future. Though in this scenario it likely would not matter
>> as the non-open DLE handler would only be present when the non-open
>> bootloader was present.
> 
> Is the expectation that the DLE will always be shipped with the
> bootloader? I think I'm not entirely clear on what's consuming this and
> why.
> 

No, in fact, an early idea proposed by a pair of us in the TrenchBoot 
community was to have it live either as a Runtime Service that was 
loaded by a UEFI app or in the coreboot UEFI payload.