On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 07:22:01 -0700 Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 12:47:02PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > +CC list almost certainly misses people interested in this topic > > so please forward as appropriate. > > > > I'll start by saying I haven't moved forward much with the > > SPDM/CMA over Data Object Exchange proposal from the PoC that led to > > presenting it last year as part of the PCI etc uconf last year. > > https://lpc.events/event/11/contributions/1089/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220303135905.10420-1-Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > I'm continuing to carry the QEMU emulation but not posted for a while > > as we are slowly working through a backlog of CXL stuff to merge. > > https://gitlab.com/jic23/qemu/-/commit/f989c8cf283302c70eb5b0b73625b5357c4eb44f > > On the plus side, Ira is driving the DOE support forwards so > > that will resolve one missing precursor. > > > > We had a lot of open questions last year and many of them are > > still at least somewhat open; perhaps now is time to revisit? > > > > In the meantime there has been discussion[1]: > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAPcyv4jb7D5AKZsxGE5X0jon5suob5feggotdCZWrO_XNaer3A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220511191345.GA26623@xxxxxxxxx/ > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAPcyv4iWGb7baQSsjjLJFuT1E11X8cHYdZoGXsNd+B9GHtsxLw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Perhaps it is worth putting in a proposal for either a session in an > > appropriate uconf at plumbers, or maybe a BoF given it is a > > broader topic than either PCI or CXL? > > Yes, while this could work as part of the CXL uconf it is probably a more > general topic. Maybe steal time from PCI given CXL uconf is going to be busy! (lets see if any of the PCI folk are reading this thread.. :) At the moment I'm not seeing enough interest to put in a proposal for anything 'officially scheduled', but there is a bit more time until the deadline so let's see if we get any other interest in that time. > > > > > We'll still need to dance around work in various standards bodies > > that we can't talk about yet, but it feels like it's worth > > some time hammering out a plan of attack on what we can > > discuss. > > > > Rough topics: > > > > * Use models. Without those hard to define the rest! > > * Policy. What do we do if we can't establish a secure channel? > > * Transports of interest. Single solution for MCTP vs > > PCI/CMA or not? > > * Session setup etc in kernel / userspace / carefully curated hybrid > > of the two (Dan mentioned this last one in one of the links above) > > There may be similarities to the discussion around TLS (much simpler > > though I think!) > > I think this is something which really does need some face to face (or virtual > face) time. FWIW another idea from Christoph is kernel bundled userspace code. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/YoT4C77Yem37NUUR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I'm not sure any real implementation would be workable. Ah. I remembered to CC Christoph but not to actually link the relevant mail. That proposal is definitely interesting. > > > * Key management > > * Potential to use github.com/dmtf/libSPDM - is it suitable for any solutions > > (it's handy for emulation if nothing else!) > > * Measurement and what to do with it. > > * No public hardware yet, so what else should we emulate to enable > > work in this area. (SPDM over MCTP over I2C is on my list as easy > > to do in QEMU building on > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220520170128.4436-1-Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > * Many other things I've forgotten about - please add! > > > > So are people who care going to be at plumbers (in person or virtually) > > and if so, do we want to put forward a session proposal? > > I have submitted a non-CXL topic in the arch uconf and was hoping to go in > person but I'm unsure of travel budgets. I will likely be virtual if I can't > attend in person. Cool. See you there in some fashion. Jonathan > > Ira
