From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0CFC433EF for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:37:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245009AbiBBIhI (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:37:08 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:25986 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234655AbiBBIhG (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:37:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1643791025; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0LxRwlZfMqnWt1iARRSy0LPvgy7cUgzWuLb0lOOyGTo=; b=eHDAruSO94XvlanggwbUrogAjkq7UhylOgtMRcFHLxsjMvHgFJWgmgrGOk7TdNR2JSsbih LJbrm8/Xj1sWubvTAAJFntSZIcjDt+klgFObgiiyZXX3y7awtBnHAMWQ+yLx7w1DsJtrtQ SivHwPQ+OzPwiJ1LwD70sV80+jE3j8Y= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-599-D3Wl-U4bMai7-yURfjTIfw-1; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 03:37:01 -0500 X-MC-Unique: D3Wl-U4bMai7-yURfjTIfw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16743839A3F; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.193.47]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CB204F86D; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 04BD61800397; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:36:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:36:53 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Greg KH , James Bottomley , Dov Murik , linux-efi , Borislav Petkov , Ashish Kalra , Brijesh Singh , Tom Lendacky , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Andi Kleen , Andrew Scull , Dave Hansen , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Lenny Szubowicz , Peter Gonda , Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum , Jim Cadden , Daniele Buono , linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nayna Jain , dougmill@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gcwilson@linux.ibm.com, gjoyce@ibm.com, "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , Michael Ellerman , Daniel Axtens Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Allow guest access to EFI confidential computing secret area Message-ID: <20220202083653.p3cb4w3qdud4e33t@sirius.home.kraxel.org> References: <20220201124413.1093099-1-dovmurik@linux.ibm.com> <37779659ca96ac9c1f11bcc0ac0665895c795b54.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20220202040157.GA8019@srcf.ucam.org> <20220202065443.GA9249@srcf.ucam.org> <20220202071023.GA9489@srcf.ucam.org> <20220202080401.GA9861@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220202080401.GA9861@srcf.ucam.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, > The only thing I personally struggle with here is whether "coco" is the > best name for it, and whether there are reasonable use cases that > wouldn't be directly related to confidential computing (eg, if the > firmware on a bare-metal platform had a mechanism for exposing secrets > to the OS based on some specific platform security state, it would seem > reasonable to expose it via this mechanism but it may not be what we'd > normally think of as Confidential Computing). > > But I'd also say that while we only have one implementation currently > sending patches, it's fine for the code to live in that implementation > and then be abstracted out once we have another. The implementation can be sorted later when a second implementation shows up, but it'll be better if we don't have to change the naming convention. "coco/efi_secrets" doesn't look like a good choice to me, given that it is rather likely we see more users for this showing up. Having a "secrets/" directory looks good to me. Then the individual implementations can either add files to the directory, i.e. efi_secrets would create "secrets/" files. Or each implementation creates a subdirectory with the secrets, i.e. "secrets/coco/" and "secrets/coco/". Longer-term (i.e once we have more than one implementation) we probably need a separate module which owns and manages the "secrets/" directory, and possibly provides some common helper functions too. take care, Gerd