From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.221.54 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793981020; b=IObU8lsdQW+aDJd36TZZ+bDJYpTtbRhyHF2oidUrDDkcJgDTIhCgZHDB8nwCuyiq5M0P C8o1DF2LuQlZn6cUMoQFPq38ViwIJM7lGMRfKjR9m6mzXSJvwRaFpA0KxT1oHc/on3SnP eR5aXdXHgldh8csVIrtcFASTaaQLAm/DWiC1syN8kmomqReICuELIcDIuZpJ+aoFfiI9W m7ZAGMDR7j4V/X2xO+EJylBfwvfB9Zp+2xMibj3B8FUBNvEFD26hyPeoI7H0LoONzIYdU 6qM6RZQferBb6NdHaPrn7ogmFvVug43gCYG7Be+9qf96XX1KP/NbZnBrdYLmZNYG80A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793981020; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:X-Google-DKIM-Signature: X-Forwarded-Encrypted:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Gm-Gg:X-Received:Received: Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=t7whNWzXgtf5Zep3rN0eJ8AdaQGIaezCYSMAtMtMDQ4=; b=AQIgJ0XtTjII4vveY2eU1wPETRpVt8Zw11cv1Q/FbzLu4M7eCri6tVBrenrWSXqeAPmG zBpJtCB7Y9HgjNeCADXwVrALEGq7Pod/MIOHlXMLG4p/lFT/2h3j+V0bP0SQrjKOV0xCG AkB6qk1dM7RnuAkBb8M4ERMxKCLi7ml+5wA6zOX8h/Bldl9IzaO3zTxz9JCD33RRNhLsQ 5dGuwSwSIPyi539O9M9RJv/Mko+FILiv99PqaJg5MtC94IJwMpXjd65YYSCEKUzA8NpFb qwD/8J30ySiSgJOBNaIpTt33f3ZwETLb2MIrdPiV/IsQBcznc9a6Yt4PYmTQTAwLFYg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=resnulli.us; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=resnulli.us; dkim=pass header.d=resnulli.us header.i=@resnulli.us header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=PROVhtFB; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.221.54 Received: from mail-wr1-f54.google.com (mail-wr1-f54.google.com [209.85.221.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0A03606A326 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 16:03:38 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org D0A03606A326 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=resnulli.us Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=resnulli.us Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=resnulli.us header.i=@resnulli.us header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=PROVhtFB Received: by mail-wr1-f54.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-48dfc0421d9so897177f8f.1 for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 08:03:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=resnulli.us; s=google; t=1793981017; x=1794585817; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=t7whNWzXgtf5Zep3rN0eJ8AdaQGIaezCYSMAtMtMDQ4=; b=PROVhtFBjiJL+M4D+pdcjRm34WNVU0Biwx7qiIHzLO+Dmg7trp46+GEqUgPKdhEbt0 3ap1c2ItjCrGDnAhNpOzx4pOWMg27MNi/WxI0zA0O/tfV9zarjUHSb2qO730sdRsXPhm YQ5YDp/qnYpkHndm9k6ya2ujKHgrC56BMrPDfy+UR+DiWa0259MM5BWmuhi03/giL/Vw LT2ScogfcWZF41AoGkFJmBjLE3tgyE10+V9+O88PZ7pDT3dWGLSb2rsr4Mn2D9hQQarn 8xnSNFo1XDw577NcafopStS/ls+4DqhJ/kdX/0SOLPI20rV9aiCm8PCAcsTAYx6NLW/9 dThw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1793981017; x=1794585817; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=t7whNWzXgtf5Zep3rN0eJ8AdaQGIaezCYSMAtMtMDQ4=; b=hIh4Ars7ROk+gcRqOAS7EqIrCfZwNRRiDj+c3zoyh2xv4jhuTBxJ2f8tAwllqDs3bZ ADqsNHsRPiu7PKJPc9Rw9gHgBN20WgJM99685Tq4WQ+jZ5WHbAAaoMaD5mLuuyFP2f6S rEctBuJVvfkeOtlmftKyaX3o2IVW+ScqGYHptJ/0JY+DHnQVKP8BRrLdK87OM8dICVM/ IKyAuin9poKLbbuXtyDyET3jIlEs0i1YGpqHNUHNtDkDoZKq/BYcT4IhZvsNPJb7qqMe xWkrgDcsrI9UKcg2hSCz1hmp5UZ6j7HtvWJdBIX7VTJxs1D4Drfd+I9qQ8xa2lHvwPV5 8yyA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AL+hErElO+TZ9xvKJRdb98pBVCVCDeQoGASpHRtluZHa0SX4tOyyZTYYxTyiZbWcZEQJPJDeaOpXs2ZSNkKzUgs=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: APuU4Z8j8SFUjqbh7VqFzKZVJdngkQg3G4bZ9Au48EJVbCC54moULJbP flGPbJZOWP4KPk38yJxEdh2YzHmOvhsXulh9kE3f2431HPb6Fjf5ZT7MbgwAFiF2o44= X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou3oRKVpwCKqlV6hD6arrL0E2EyBdNaqWmwNOvadaEZFL06yj4mUA5BSgFOCBAu UJp3w+75xqUr6JenxzsWkLKpTviB4IF0xBS54d4HlsP5RQnetnbVjoVXLJWsql7GdPzWqBZPGhI aAUmA4XOS4c5dB1mm+Y+FsyrC512QICZbtJyYksByu0gL1q+gvPyCOK8E0uHEyX1QorUTzrqULu +0AUhCXrRSCOnACER4m/JZw4wShRId8hTrtj7AtgDS05paPZ3ZtzYUE0Xc+/arxiUMA5eBJbofL 5JYMvpXVmDZSBHGWvI+tjP5nx565QK0644utKCsOH4xRAo91Vvs8upAxs2nqynjdB2zxxCAxyGS dCBkj+397MUW7LBBBImD/GJOhC3LvaygDKvM38oYF8U0GajfK7vtaTcixOenKhP7AJYAx36qLnE 4F0E8ZGWe0nMcq6Qbb9v9VB7bEmR6KNTZonTALfFCKrNpULRpkEImjvHjuEGgFqBniAF4XSo2DS N/EjNQli3pWxU37UA24W9I/1lbrikJEYP8AVlrIeqDC8ixnRHlY+2od4M3kRxf71aGcN1b+au7/ IDyzYdWNiRoU1cEnN4Co982poD/pAFcBhIsx X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:46d0:b0:490:b23b:802d with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-4927740356amr3723333f8f.37.1793981016857; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 08:03:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([208.127.45.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-492d7701b51sm4353763f8f.37.2026.11.06.08.03.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 06 Nov 2026 08:03:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2026 17:03:32 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko To: Yeoreum Yun Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, david.quigley@intel.com, lukas@wunner.de, ksinyuk@kernel.org, rodrigo.vivi@intel.com, cedric.xing@intel.com, sameo@meta.com, drdeeglaze@gmail.com, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, aik@amd.com, jpiotrowski@nvidia.com, qinkun@google.com, pgonda@google.com, jic23@kernel.org, alistair.francis@wdc.com, ankita@nvidia.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, kas@kernel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, elena.reshetova@intel.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, peter.fang@intel.com, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 17/20] attestation: Add CTLV operation handling Message-ID: References: <20261015145053.3664509-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20261015145053.3664509-18-jiri@resnulli.us> <20261104194622.GC3889730@ziepe.ca> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 03:36:50PM +0100, yeoreum.yun@arm.com wrote: >> Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 09:57:25AM +0100, yeoreum.yun@arm.com wrote: >> >On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 09:27:42AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 02:52:19PM +0100, yeoreum.yun@arm.com wrote: >> >> >On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 01:32:49PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >> Wed, Nov 04, 2026 at 08:46:22PM +0100, jgg@ziepe.ca wrote: >> >> >> >On Wed, Nov 04, 2026 at 07:11:44PM +0000, Yeoreum Yun wrote: >> >> >> >> [..snip..] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > +static int attestation_evidence_request_decode(struct attestation *att, struct ctlv_op_ctx *ctx, >> >> >> >> > + const struct ctlv_cursor *request, >> >> >> >> > + struct attestation_evidence_request *decoded, >> >> >> >> > + struct attestation_evidence_object_request **objects) >> >> >> >> > +{ >> >> >> >> > + const struct attestation_evidence_caps *caps = att->provider->evidence_caps; >> >> >> >> > + u32 challenge_length; >> >> >> >> > + >> >> >> >> > + decoded->challenge = >> >> >> >> > + ctlv_attestation_evidence_get_evidence_challenge_get(request, &challenge_length); >> >> >> >> > + decoded->challenge_length = challenge_length; >> >> >> >> > + if (challenge_length < caps->min_challenge_length || >> >> >> >> > + challenge_length > caps->max_challenge_length) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hmm, I'm not sure whether this check is required for >> >> >> >> ATTESTATION_EVIDENCE_BLOB_EVENT_LOG blob type. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> for example, if the provider provides two evidence: >> >> >> >> - ATTESTATION_EVIDENCE_BLOB_PRIMARY (might attestation token) >> >> >> >> - ATTESTATION_EVIDENCE_BLOB_EVENT_LOG >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> might challenge is reuiqred for generating the token >> >> >> >> and this would be marked at min/max_challenge_size in evidence_cap. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> However, in case of eventlog, it wouldn't require challenge. >> >> >> >> for example, TPM event log or CCEL event log. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Right >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Do we need some field on attestation_evidence_supported_object whether >> >> >> >> it requires challenge or not and applies this sanity check per the object? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Otherwise, to get eventlog, it would need to send *dummy* challenge >> >> >> >> always. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I wonder if we should have two interfaces here for signed and unsigned >> >> >> >evidence? It would be clearer for userspace then when it needs to >> >> >> >provide a challenge or not. >> >> >> >> >> >> Isn't the challenge field provided/not-provided enough? >> >> >> >> >> >> Currently on the introspection side, device-get op would provide >> >> >> challenge-lengths array: >> >> >> >> >> >> evidence?: >> >> >> challenge-lengths[8]: >> >> >> length?: uint(..4096) >> >> >> min-length?: uint(..4096) >> >> >> max-length?: uint(..4096) >> >> >> objects[16]: >> >> >> blob-class: evidence-blob-class >> >> >> max-length: uint >> >> >> blob-instance?: uint(..u32-max) >> >> >> >> >> >> I think it would make sense to have challenge-lengths array per object: >> >> >> >> >> >> objects[16]: >> >> >> blob-class: evidence-blob-class >> >> >> max-length: uint >> >> >> blob-instance?: uint(..u32-max) >> >> >> challenge-lengths[8]: >> >> >> length?: uint(..4096) >> >> >> min-length?: uint(..4096) >> >> >> max-length?: uint(..4096) >> >> >> >> >> >> Then the unsigned object would just simply have challenge-lengths empty? >> >> > >> >> >This looks good to me. :) >> >> >> >> The challenge is one of several open points that all depend on what an >> >> evidence object is: Rick's TDREPORT, legacy versus DICE Quotes, >> >> "primary", "raw" and the format strings. Here is my proposal to settle >> >> these together: >> >> >> >> The model: >> >> >> >> 1. device-get lists each object with an id, a class (signed, event-log, >> >> cert-chain or auxiliary), the formats it may come in, its max-length >> >> and, for signed objects only, challenge-lengths. >> >> 2. evidence-get names objects by id, as MR ops name MRs, each with its >> >> output blob. It carries a challenge exactly when it names a signed >> >> object, and the challenge has to fit each of them. >> >> 3. The reply gives each object's format, length and, where the TCB >> >> vouches for it, the TCB's digest. The output is always {label, data}. >> >> 4. A signed object is made by the call, over the challenge, and never >> >> reused. The rest are read as they stand. >> >> >> >> This settles following issues discussed during this patchset review: >> >> >> >> 1. One op, not two. Per-object challenge-lengths tell userspace when to >> >> pass a challenge, and one call returns the signed object with the log >> >> and certificates needed to check it. >> >> 2. TDX's TDREPORT goes: it is MAC'd for the platform, not signed. >> >> /dev/tdx_guest keeps TDX_CMD_GET_REPORT0. >> >> 3. TDX's Quote object lists the legacy and the DICE format. The provider >> >> labels what the host returned and fails on a Quote it cannot label. >> >> 4. "primary" becomes "signed", manifest joins auxiliary, spdm-vca, >> >> spdm-measurements and tdisp-report become formats, and signature >> >> goes, as a signed object carries its own. >> >> 5. "raw" goes with the representation attr. The TCB digest is a reply >> >> field, so a blob always holds the object's own bytes. >> >> >> >> Formats become an enum each provider family defines, instead of free >> >> strings. I'm still unsure if format should be entirely provider-specific >> >> and defined as "extension", or it should be somehow mixture of common >> >> and provider-specific. Looks there is not really much common >> >> anyway, so I lean towards provider-specific only. So far I have: >> > >> >Overall, This is plausible for me with some small question. >> > >> >> >> >> ====== ============ ========== ========= =========================== >> >> Family Format Class Challenge Bytes >> >> ====== ============ ========== ========= =========================== >> >[...] >> >> tpm ek-cert cert-chain none EK certificate from NV >> > >> >Just a thought, but how are we planning to retrieve >> >the NV index for EK certificate? >> > >> >As far as I know, TPM NV storage doesn't support labeling. >> > >> >Should I assume that the NV index would be specified as part of the >> >challenge to retrieve the certificate from TPM NV storage? >> >> evidence-get allows to accept mr-selection as part of the request >> alongside the challenge. > >Sorry. Could you explain a little bit detail for this?. >AFAIU, this is to get the EK certificate from TPM non-volatile storage. >But, I don't know why *EK* certificate get would be relevant for >*mr selection*. AFAIK, the TPM_Quote will be used AK not a EK. You are right, my mistake. I misunderstood the question. mr-selection selects PCRs for Quote, or an extend-NV measurement register for NV Certify. An NV-resident EK certificate is retrieved using NV_Read. I think blob-instance is a good fit. For TPM certificate objects, it could identify the certificate's NV index. > >Also, AFAIK, mr_selection is meaningful when the evidence_accept is >supported. These are independent. mr-selection chooses the measurements included in evidence. EVIDENCE_ACCEPT authorizes a subsequent native transition. The TPM provider can quote selected PCRs without supporting acceptance. > >What is the relation-ship between mr-selecation and getting the TPM's >EK certificate getting from NV storage? > >-- >Sincerely, >Yeoreum Yun