From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com> To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> Cc: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, luto@amacapital.net, nivedita@alum.mit.edu, kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com, trenchboot-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/14] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 20:41:00 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <df9d1260-41dd-034b-9dc6-14173c6c0d25@apertussolutions.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20230515212206.GA2162@srcf.ucam.org> On 5/15/23 17:22, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 05:15:15PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote: >> On 5/12/23 06:55, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 02:50:13PM +0000, Ross Philipson wrote: >>> >>>> +#define SLR_TABLE_MAGIC 0x4452544d >>> >>> From convention I'd expect this to be 0x534c5254, but not really an >>> issue. >> >> Apologies, but which convention? > > Tables in ACPI and UEFI tend to have magic that corresponds to their > name, so a table called SLRT would tend to have magic that matches the > ASCII values for that. In this case the SLRT has DRTM as its magic, > which is a touch unexpected. While the SLRT is meant for UEFI and non-UEFI environments, DRTM is definitely a hold over when we started this and you are correct, probably not the best choice. In fact, I agree that SLRT is a far better magic. We will update the spec and fix it in the series. >>> Oof. Having the kernel know about bootloaders has not worked out super >>> well for us in the past. If someone writes a new bootloader, are they >>> unable to Secure Launch any existing kernels? The pragmatic thing for >>> them to do would be to just pretend they're grub, which kind of defeats >>> the point of having this definition... >> >> Actually, this is not for making the kernel know about bootloaders. This is >> dealing with the challenge created when the preamble was split for efi-stub, >> and similar use cases, where what sets up the preamble, ie. the bootloader, >> is separate from what invokes the dynamic launch, ie. the DLE handler. The >> reality is that even in the simplest implementation of the DLE handler, a >> remnant of GRUB for call back from efi-stub, there is information that is >> needed to cross the gap. > > 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. >> We wrote the TrenchBoot Secure Launch general spec [1] with as much >> forethought as possible for the target environments. Specifically, the >> desire is to have a common approach for x86 (Intel and AMD), Arm, and >> perhaps down the road the POWER arch. In particular, I do not believe there >> is anything in the Arm DRTM beta spec that prohibits a mixed 32/64 bit >> environment. In the end it is better to for the spec to be safe for those >> environments then having to make changes to the spec later down the road. > > Ok. Thank you for the review! v/r, dps
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com> To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> Cc: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, luto@amacapital.net, nivedita@alum.mit.edu, kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com, trenchboot-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/14] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 20:41:00 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <df9d1260-41dd-034b-9dc6-14173c6c0d25@apertussolutions.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20230515212206.GA2162@srcf.ucam.org> On 5/15/23 17:22, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 05:15:15PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote: >> On 5/12/23 06:55, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 02:50:13PM +0000, Ross Philipson wrote: >>> >>>> +#define SLR_TABLE_MAGIC 0x4452544d >>> >>> From convention I'd expect this to be 0x534c5254, but not really an >>> issue. >> >> Apologies, but which convention? > > Tables in ACPI and UEFI tend to have magic that corresponds to their > name, so a table called SLRT would tend to have magic that matches the > ASCII values for that. In this case the SLRT has DRTM as its magic, > which is a touch unexpected. While the SLRT is meant for UEFI and non-UEFI environments, DRTM is definitely a hold over when we started this and you are correct, probably not the best choice. In fact, I agree that SLRT is a far better magic. We will update the spec and fix it in the series. >>> Oof. Having the kernel know about bootloaders has not worked out super >>> well for us in the past. If someone writes a new bootloader, are they >>> unable to Secure Launch any existing kernels? The pragmatic thing for >>> them to do would be to just pretend they're grub, which kind of defeats >>> the point of having this definition... >> >> Actually, this is not for making the kernel know about bootloaders. This is >> dealing with the challenge created when the preamble was split for efi-stub, >> and similar use cases, where what sets up the preamble, ie. the bootloader, >> is separate from what invokes the dynamic launch, ie. the DLE handler. The >> reality is that even in the simplest implementation of the DLE handler, a >> remnant of GRUB for call back from efi-stub, there is information that is >> needed to cross the gap. > > 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. >> We wrote the TrenchBoot Secure Launch general spec [1] with as much >> forethought as possible for the target environments. Specifically, the >> desire is to have a common approach for x86 (Intel and AMD), Arm, and >> perhaps down the road the POWER arch. In particular, I do not believe there >> is anything in the Arm DRTM beta spec that prohibits a mixed 32/64 bit >> environment. In the end it is better to for the spec to be safe for those >> environments then having to make changes to the spec later down the road. > > Ok. Thank you for the review! v/r, dps _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-16 0:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 200+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-05-04 14:50 [PATCH v6 00/14] x86: Trenchboot secure dynamic launch Linux kernel support Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 01/14] x86/boot: Place kernel_info at a fixed offset Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 02/14] Documentation/x86: Secure Launch kernel documentation Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 16:19 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 16:19 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 17:32 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 17:32 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-06 8:48 ` Bagas Sanjaya 2023-05-06 8:48 ` Bagas Sanjaya 2023-05-10 15:41 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-10 15:41 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 10:47 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 10:47 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-06-16 16:44 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-06-16 16:44 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-06-16 16:54 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-06-16 16:54 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-06-16 18:21 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-06-16 18:21 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-12 13:19 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-12 13:19 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 03/14] x86: Secure Launch Kconfig Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 04/14] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 16:22 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 16:22 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 17:34 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 17:34 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-10 23:04 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-10 23:04 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-15 20:58 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-15 20:58 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-12 10:55 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 10:55 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-15 21:15 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-15 21:15 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-15 21:22 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-15 21:22 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-16 0:41 ` Daniel P. Smith [this message] 2023-05-16 0:41 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-16 1:43 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-16 1:43 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-06-16 20:01 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-06-16 20:01 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-06-16 20:15 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-06-16 20:15 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-07-07 19:31 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-07-07 19:31 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 05/14] x86: Secure Launch main " Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 16:25 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 16:25 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 17:37 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 17:37 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 11:00 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 11:00 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 16:10 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 16:10 ` Ross Philipson 2023-10-31 21:37 ` ross.philipson 2023-10-31 21:37 ` ross.philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 06/14] x86: Add early SHA support for Secure Launch early measurements Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 16:34 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 16:34 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-09 16:09 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-09 16:09 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-10 1:21 ` Eric Biggers 2023-05-10 1:21 ` Eric Biggers 2023-05-10 22:28 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-10 22:28 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-12 11:04 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 11:04 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 11:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2023-05-12 11:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2023-05-12 11:28 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 11:28 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 11:58 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2023-05-12 11:58 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2023-05-12 12:24 ` Andrew Cooper 2023-05-12 12:24 ` Andrew Cooper 2023-05-14 18:18 ` Eric Biggers 2023-05-14 18:18 ` Eric Biggers 2023-05-14 19:11 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-14 19:11 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 13:24 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-12 13:24 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-12 16:13 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 16:13 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 18:17 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-12 18:17 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-12 19:12 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 19:12 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 19:42 ` Andrew Cooper 2023-05-12 19:42 ` Andrew Cooper 2023-05-15 21:23 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-15 21:23 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-11 3:33 ` Herbert Xu 2023-05-11 3:33 ` Herbert Xu 2023-05-16 0:50 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-16 0:50 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 07/14] x86: Secure Launch kernel early boot stub Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 17:47 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 17:47 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 18:58 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 18:58 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 19:46 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 19:46 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-12 11:26 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 11:26 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 16:17 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 16:17 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 16:27 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 16:27 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-16 1:11 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-16 1:11 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-16 1:45 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-16 1:45 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-06-15 18:00 ` Ross Philipson 2023-06-15 18:00 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 18:04 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-12 18:04 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-15 20:13 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-15 20:13 ` Ross Philipson 2023-09-20 21:40 ` ross.philipson 2023-09-20 21:40 ` ross.philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 08/14] x86: Secure Launch kernel late " Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 17:52 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 17:52 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 18:59 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 18:59 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-10 23:02 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-10 23:02 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-12 15:58 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 15:58 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-24 2:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-24 2:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-12 15:44 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-12 15:44 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-15 20:06 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-15 20:06 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 09/14] x86: Secure Launch SMP bringup support Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 17:54 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 17:54 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 18:59 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 18:59 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-10 22:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-10 22:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-11 16:21 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-11 16:21 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 18:02 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-12 18:02 ` Thomas Gleixner 2023-05-15 20:19 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-15 20:19 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 10/14] kexec: Secure Launch kexec SEXIT support Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 11/14] reboot: Secure Launch SEXIT support on reboot paths Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 11:40 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 11:40 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-15 18:16 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-15 18:16 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-16 1:23 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-16 1:23 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 12/14] x86: Secure Launch late initcall platform module Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 19:42 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-05 19:42 ` Simon Horman 2023-05-08 15:07 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-08 15:07 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-10 22:39 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-10 22:39 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-12 15:53 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 15:53 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-10 22:40 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-10 22:40 ` Jarkko Sakkinen 2023-05-12 15:54 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 15:54 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 13/14] tpm: Allow locality 2 to be set when initializing the TPM for Secure Launch Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 11:43 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 11:43 ` Matthew Garrett 2023-05-12 16:22 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-12 16:22 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-16 1:37 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-16 1:37 ` Daniel P. Smith 2023-05-04 14:50 ` [PATCH v6 14/14] x86: EFI stub DRTM launch support " Ross Philipson 2023-05-04 14:50 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 8:39 ` [PATCH v6 00/14] x86: Trenchboot secure dynamic launch Linux kernel support Bagas Sanjaya 2023-05-05 8:39 ` Bagas Sanjaya 2023-05-05 15:45 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-05 15:45 ` Ross Philipson 2023-05-06 7:56 ` Bagas Sanjaya 2023-05-06 7:56 ` Bagas Sanjaya
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=df9d1260-41dd-034b-9dc6-14173c6c0d25@apertussolutions.com \ --to=dpsmith@apertussolutions.com \ --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \ --cc=ardb@kernel.org \ --cc=bp@alien8.de \ --cc=hpa@zytor.com \ --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \ --cc=kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com \ --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=luto@amacapital.net \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \ --cc=nivedita@alum.mit.edu \ --cc=ross.philipson@oracle.com \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=trenchboot-devel@googlegroups.com \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.