On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 09:24:50AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > [cc's added] > On Tue, 2022-02-01 at 14:50 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 12:44:08PM +0000, Dov Murik wrote: > [...] > > > # ls -la /sys/kernel/security/coco/efi_secret > > > total 0 > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 28 11:55 . > > > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 Jun 28 11:54 .. > > > -r--r----- 1 root root 0 Jun 28 11:54 736870e5-84f0-4973-92ec- > > > 06879ce3da0b > > > -r--r----- 1 root root 0 Jun 28 11:54 83c83f7f-1356-4975-8b7e- > > > d3a0b54312c6 > > > -r--r----- 1 root root 0 Jun 28 11:54 9553f55d-3da2-43ee-ab5d- > > > ff17f78864d2 > > > > Please see my comments on the powerpc version of this type of thing: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220122005637.28199-1-nayna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > If you want a debate, actually cc'ing the people on the other thread > would have been a good start ... > > For those added, this patch series is at: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220201124413.1093099-1-dovmurik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks for adding everyone. > > You all need to work together to come up with a unified place for > > this and stop making it platform-specific. > > I'm not entirely sure of that. If you look at the differences between > EFI variables and the COCO proposal: the former has an update API > which, in the case of signed variables, is rather complex and a UC16 > content requirement. The latter is binary data with read only/delete. > Plus each variable in EFI is described by a GUID, so having a directory > of random guids, some of which behave like COCO secrets and some of > which are EFI variables is going to be incredibly confusing (and also > break all our current listing tools which seems somewhat undesirable). > > So we could end up with > > <common path prefix>/efivar > <common path prefix>/coco The powerpc stuff is not efi. But yes, that is messy here. But why doesn't the powerpc follow the coco standard? > To achieve the separation, but I really don't see what this buys us. > Both filesystems would likely end up with different backends because of > the semantic differences and we can easily start now in different > places (effectively we've already done this for efi variables) and > unify later if that is the chosen direction, so it doesn't look like a > blocker. > > > Until then, we can't take this. > > I don't believe anyone was asking you to take it. I was on the review list...
