On Thu Oct 31, 2024 at 9:25 PM EET, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13 2024 at 13:04, Ross Philipson wrote: > > The larger focus of the TrenchBoot project (https://github.com/TrenchBoot) is to > > enhance the boot security and integrity in a unified manner. The first area of > > focus has been on the Trusted Computing Group's Dynamic Launch for establishing > > a hardware Root of Trust for Measurement, also know as DRTM (Dynamic Root of > > Trust for Measurement). The project has been and continues to work on providing > > a unified means to Dynamic Launch that is a cross-platform (Intel and AMD) and > > cross-architecture (x86 and Arm), with our recent involvment in the upcoming > > Arm DRTM specification. The order of introducing DRTM to the Linux kernel > > follows the maturity of DRTM in the architectures. Intel's Trusted eXecution > > Technology (TXT) is present today and only requires a preamble loader, e.g. a > > boot loader, and an OS kernel that is TXT-aware. AMD DRTM implementation has > > been present since the introduction of AMD-V but requires an additional > > component that is AMD specific and referred to in the specification as the > > Secure Loader, which the TrenchBoot project has an active prototype in > > development. Finally Arm's implementation is in specification development stage > > and the project is looking to support it when it becomes available. > > > > This patchset provides detailed documentation of DRTM, the approach used for > > adding the capbility, and relevant API/ABI documentation. In addition to the > > documentation the patch set introduces Intel TXT support as the first platform > > for Linux Secure Launch. > > 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)? > > Thanks, > > tglx BR, Jarkko _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
