From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
To: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>
Cc: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
trenchboot-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] x86: Trenchboot secure late launch Linux kernel support
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:54:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACdnJusRATYv3Une5r14KHJVEg5COVW9B_BNViUXjavSxZ6d5A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bacbc25a-c724-d2fd-40bd-065799cd6195@apertussolutions.com>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:50 PM Daniel P. Smith
<dpsmith@apertussolutions.com> wrote:
> It is not part of the EFI entry point as we are not entering the kernel
> from EFI but I will address that further in my response to Andy. The
> expectation is that if you are on an UEFI platform then EBS should have
> already been called.
Ok. In that case should the EFI boot stub optionally be calling this
instead of startup_32?
> With respect to using the firmware's TPM code, one
> of the purposes of a TCG Dynamic Launch is to remove the firmware from
> the code being trusted in making the integrity measurement of the
> kernel. I trust the firmware to initialize the hardware because I have
> to and it does give a trust chain, aka the SRTM, that can attest to what
> was used during that process. When the OS kernel is being started that
> trust chain has become weak (or even broken). I want a new trust chain
> that can provide better footing for asserting the integrity of the
> kernel and this is what Dynamic Launch gives us. I would like to think I
> did a fair job explaining this at LSS last fall[1][2] and would
> recommend those that are curious to review the slides/watch the
> presentation.
PCs depend on the availability of EFI runtime services - it's not
possible to just assert that they're untrusted and so unsupported. The
TPM code is part of boot services which (based on your design) are
unavailable at this point, so I agree that you need your own
implementation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-26 20:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-25 19:43 [RFC PATCH 00/12] x86: Trenchboot secure late launch Linux kernel support Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 01/12] x86: Secure Launch Kconfig Ross Philipson
2020-03-26 18:06 ` Daniel Kiper
2020-03-26 19:42 ` Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 02/12] x86: Secure Launch main header file Ross Philipson
2020-03-26 19:00 ` Daniel Kiper
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 03/12] x86: Add early SHA support for Secure Launch early measurements Ross Philipson
2020-03-26 3:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-03-26 22:49 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 04/12] x86: Add early TPM TIS/CRB interface support for Secure Launch Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 05/12] x86: Add early TPM1.2/TPM2.0 " Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 06/12] x86: Add early general TPM " Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 07/12] x86: Secure Launch kernel early boot stub Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 08/12] x86: Secure Launch kernel late " Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 09/12] x86: Secure Launch SMP bringup support Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 10/12] x86: Secure Launch adding event log securityfs Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 20:21 ` Matthew Garrett
2020-03-25 21:43 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 11/12] kexec: Secure Launch kexec SEXIT support Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 12/12] tpm: Allow locality 2 to be set when initializing the TPM for Secure Launch Ross Philipson
2020-03-25 20:29 ` [RFC PATCH 00/12] x86: Trenchboot secure late launch Linux kernel support Matthew Garrett
2020-03-25 22:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-03-26 20:50 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-03-26 23:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-05-11 19:00 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-03-26 13:40 ` Daniel Kiper
2020-03-26 20:19 ` Matthew Garrett
2020-03-26 20:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-03-26 20:40 ` Matthew Garrett
2020-03-26 20:59 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-03-26 21:07 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-03-26 21:28 ` Matthew Garrett
2020-03-26 22:52 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-03-26 22:59 ` Matthew Garrett
2020-03-26 23:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-03-27 0:01 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-03-26 23:50 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-05-11 19:00 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-03-26 20:50 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-03-26 20:54 ` Matthew Garrett [this message]
2020-03-26 22:37 ` Daniel P. Smith
2020-03-26 22:41 ` Matthew Garrett
2020-03-26 23:55 ` Daniel P. Smith
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=CACdnJusRATYv3Une5r14KHJVEg5COVW9B_BNViUXjavSxZ6d5A@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mjg59@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dpsmith@apertussolutions.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).