linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/sev: add a SVSM vTPM platform device

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: <D79CYAVX0LAZ.1MIYNOM6J7MMM@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 11:50:40 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Dionna Amalie Glaze" <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
Cc: "Stefano Garzarella" <sgarzare@...hat.com>, "Jarkko Sakkinen"
 <jarkko.sakkinen@....fi>, "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>, "James
 Bottomley" <james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
 <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>, "Dave
 Hansen" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@....de>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
 <x86@...nel.org>, "Joerg Roedel" <jroedel@...e.de>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Thomas
 Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Claudio Carvalho"
 <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>, "Dov Murik" <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>, "Tom
 Lendacky" <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/sev: add a SVSM vTPM platform device

On Wed Jan 22, 2025 at 11:29 PM EET, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
> I can appreciate this viewpoint. It even surfaced Microsoft's fTPM
> paper to me, which solves some interesting problems we need to solve
> in SVSM too. So thanks for that.
>
> Just to clarify, you're not asking for SVSM to implement the TIS-MMIO
> interface instead, but rather to use the fTPM stack, which could make
> SVSM calls a TEE device operation?

I don't really know what I'm asking because this is barely even a
PoC, and I state it like this knowingly.

You should make the argument, and the case for the solution. Then
it is my turn to comment on that scheme.

That said, I would not give high odds for acceptance of a duplicate
TPM stack succeeding.

BR, Jarkko