From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808B13B42C7; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 08:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791880920; cv=none; b=SAyUFJ5CGQRQZfExllYFKbrI4y5aKksizcZbwP9a0pzEyE866fER8sHbafsXmh46Rn1GdOdqbfoReIodH/0EJs2fUMaQgNudyTisSvY9euLmUwLawyT3ZfZF6nSBSYvl//SxI9dRPiOdY/DgKLovJ/6ZstGo/BNHG+vO7u+ZpAI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791880920; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NI8CmL/lnRoC7aE++YpF7fiq+bAGnCCUDMqbYkmDDew=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=TLLq5FJRA5/x7iyR4SkX3ocsC0RM1sx5yewA5XAgYeWHxORnEf8L7T3LxjVIA0yD0exShE2VpYqk88A0d306lq4ScijplzeaH5ypolXC4CRMYjii+sFvE4IohUJhtRwsuPb+KiZV4NG2pwDA+wLuZo8scIEVFgrus7DF4rn3acU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=bZqkt7Lf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="bZqkt7Lf" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDCC169C; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 01:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e129823.arm.com (e129823.arm.com [10.2.213.3]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 702B53F66F; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 01:41:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1791880915; bh=NI8CmL/lnRoC7aE++YpF7fiq+bAGnCCUDMqbYkmDDew=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bZqkt7LfHhgrP+LpLkfSWkgVJSZiTZFy4lKziZu5iR37k9EFAy02+ty8P4ISH7oZJ KekFmta7QOPeZeaIU4GpQdPFpSIaN4Jm43CjCrlwnAe9zBdYufWXPGSmiCV/ITKyn4 5OZk62xDJBVPfh1/7axdbnw2G3tJM7jWkrMYzZEU= Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 09:41:49 +0100 From: Yeoreum Yun To: GONG Ruiqi Cc: Yeoreum Yun , Roberto Sassu , linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Eric Snowberg , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Dan Williams , Mimi Zohar , Roberto Sassu , Dmitry Kasatkin , Paul Moore , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Catalin Marinas , Jason Gunthorpe , Suzuki Poulose , Steven Price , Sami Mujawar , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] security: ima: support TSM measurement registers Message-ID: References: <20260930-ima_tgx_integration_v2-v1-0-722c35370548@arm.com> <9e74ff9d-e8a3-425e-bf7c-f973d06e6cdf@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <9e74ff9d-e8a3-425e-bf7c-f973d06e6cdf@huawei.com> > On 10/1/2026 10:24 PM, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > Hi Roberto, > > > >> On Thu, 2026-10-01 at 13:27 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2026-09-30 at 14:43 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > >>>> Confidential computing guests without a TPM can use TSM measurement > >>>> registers to record IMA measurement digests instead of TPM PCRs. > >> > >> + Gong Ruiqi, of course. > >> > >> Roberto > > Hi Roberto, > > Thank you for involving me! > > >> > >>> Hi Yeoreum > >>> > >>> a similar patch set has been sent to the linux-integrity mailing list: > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20250630125928.765285-1-gongruiqi1@huawei.com/ > >>> > >>> Could you please work with Gong Ruiqi to have a unified proposal? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> Roberto > >>> > > > > Thanks for letting me know and I think the proposal is almost the same > > with the different terminology only. > > > > @Gong, what do you think? > > Hi Yeoreum, > > Nice to see this topic picked up again — I'm glad the IMA RoT framework > series I posted last year is still of interest. > > Yes, I'd be happy to work with you on a unified proposal. It's been a > while since I last worked on that series, so I'll first revisit my > previous patch set, and then follow up with you to discuss the code details. > > Looking forward to working with you. > > BR, > Ruiqi Hi Ruiqi :) Thanks for replying and I'm happy with you too. However, I think we need to rework based on the Jiri's patch [0]. Any thought? Link: [0] https://github.com/jpirko/linux_mlxsw/tree/wip_attestation_pre_rfc_draft1 -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun