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]

Message-ID: <20230616201513.GA30963@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:15:13 +0100
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:     "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>
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 Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 04:01:09PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> 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.

Ok, then I think I'm still confused. If I want to write a new bootloader 
but make use of the existing DLE, what contract am I establishing and 
what value should I be putting in here?