linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 00/20] x86: Trenchboot secure dynamic launch Linux kernel support

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: <87ldy3vpjh.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 00:08:34 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, 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, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc: dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
 hpa@...or.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, ardb@...nel.org,
 mjg59@...f.ucam.org, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
 peterhuewe@....de, jgg@...pe.ca, luto@...capital.net,
 nivedita@...m.mit.edu, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
 corbet@....net, ebiederm@...ssion.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
 baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com,
 andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/20] x86: Trenchboot secure dynamic launch Linux
 kernel support

On Fri, Nov 01 2024 at 00:37, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu Oct 31, 2024 at 9:25 PM EET, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> So this looks pretty reasonable to me by now and I'm inclined to take it
>> through the tip x86 tree, but that needs reviewed/acked-by's from the
>> crypto and TPM folks. EFI has been reviewed already.
>>
>> Can we make progress on this please?
>
> So TPM patches do have bunch of glitches:
>
> - 15/20: I don't get this. There is nothing to report unless tree
>   is falling. The reported-by tag literally meaningless. Maybe this
>   is something that makes sense with this feature. Explain from that
>   angle.
> - 16/20: Is this actually a bug fix? If it is should be before 15/20.
> - 17/20: the commit message could do a better job explaining how the
>   locality can vary. I'm not sure how this will be used by rest of
>   the patch set.
> - 18/20: I'm not confident we want to give privilege to set locality
>   to the user space. The commit message neither makes a case of this.
>   Has this been tested to together with bus encryption (just checking)?

Can you please explicitely voice your detailed technical concerns in
replies to the actual patches?

Thanks,

        tglx