From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71EB7C77B75 for ; Fri, 12 May 2023 16:13:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=so0z6uCV0VbXeGSOAJ+UbaNS3ZxTD2KHLgjpYDIppNk=; b=bzreoevhrMBTuC uJbwQ7YylCh3CKbdj2dR8/22hgR1km5QAhC8RKkTa5MbUOWCqE6rP86NWrIPWLRPbmEQ5gLo/0L+a f6FRRe7mrfEN9UZ0asfre8gTYyPR8Wer8+mj2d7fgg1h9mHD9h9rMimkK3B0UEyhtUrkk0pSwPgkt ytzMzII+3q9Sw4fkEaoeCG8LHyJNP0cW+D8V6ZxGEl2Mt4SozUwpkNSusb3d7edBnaNK5XvBD7QVk 6Kto87//IiD4Yxsqk+TEDlBehuaVrITqmgUomckpd4j0+TigB3emyENSKLAFEZnP03pjzXHfv6CDE TvoaXkDbHoGqeN4geoLQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pxVOZ-00CSXv-06; Fri, 12 May 2023 16:13:27 +0000 Received: from irc.codon.org.uk ([2a00:1098:84:22e::2] helo=cavan.codon.org.uk) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pxVOU-00CSWl-16 for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 12 May 2023 16:13:25 +0000 Received: by cavan.codon.org.uk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 438EA40A6F; Fri, 12 May 2023 17:13:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 17:13:18 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Eric Biggers , Ross Philipson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, dpsmith@apertussolutions.com, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, luto@amacapital.net, nivedita@alum.mit.edu, kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com, trenchboot-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/14] x86: Add early SHA support for Secure Launch early measurements Message-ID: <20230512161318.GA18400@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20230504145023.835096-1-ross.philipson@oracle.com> <20230504145023.835096-7-ross.philipson@oracle.com> <20230510012144.GA1851@quark.localdomain> <20230512110455.GD14461@srcf.ucam.org> <20230512112847.GF14461@srcf.ucam.org> <87pm75bs3v.ffs@tglx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pm75bs3v.ffs@tglx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230512_091322_513729_FF0A76FD X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 14.89 ) X-BeenThere: kexec@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+kexec=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 03:24:04PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, May 12 2023 at 12:28, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Unless we assert that SHA-1 events are unsupported, it seems a bit odd > > to force a policy on people who have both banks enabled. People with > > mixed fleets are potentially going to be dealing with SHA-1 measurements > > for a while yet, and while there's obviously a security benefit in using > > SHA-2 instead it'd be irritating to have to maintain two attestation > > policies. > > Why? > > If you have a mixed fleet then it's not too much asked to provide two > data sets. On a TPM2 system you can enforce SHA-2 and only fallback to > SHA-1 on TPM 1.2 hardware. No? No, beause having TPM2 hardware doesn't guarantee that your firmware enables SHA-2 (which also means this is something that could change with firmware updates, which means that refusing to support SHA-1 if the SHA-2 banks are enabled could result in an entirely different policy being required (and plausibly one that isn't implemented in their existing tooling) _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec