On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 5:59 PM Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 11:36:43AM -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 3:33 PM Evan Green <evgreen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > One more bump here, as we'd really love to get encrypted hibernation > > > to a form upstream would accept if at all possible. We were > > > considering landing this in our Chrome OS tree for now, then coming > > > back in a couple months with a "we've been baking this ourselves and > > > it's going so great, oooh yeah". I'm not sure if upstream would find > > > that compelling or not. But in any case, some guidance towards making > > > this more upstream friendly would be well appreciated. > > > > > > One thing I realized in attempting to pick this myself is that the > > > trusted key blob format has moved to ASN.1. So I should really move > > > the creation ticket to the new ASN.1 format (if I can figure out the > > > right OID for that piece), which would allow me to drop a lot of the > > > ugly stuff in tpm2_unpack_blob(). Maybe if I get no other comments > > > I'll work on that and resend. > > > > I've been revamping my TPM-backed verified hibernation implementation > > based on this work, so I'd definitely be enthusiastic about it being > > mergeable. > > BTW, is it tested with QEMU + swtpm? For myself, so far I've been testing on a recent Intel Chromebook. The H1 (aka cr50) security chip on modern chromebooks implements a subset [1] of TPM2.0, and is exposed through the standard TPM APIs in the kernel. I can make sure to test on Qemu as well, is there anything in particular I should look out for? -Evan [1] https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/tpm2/+/3373466 > > BR, Jarkko
