Re: [PATCH RFC 00/20] attestation: Add a common subsystem and TDX support

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 12:56:58AM +0200, jgg@nvidia.com wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 09:10:31AM -0700, Dionna Glaze wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 5:08 AM Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah, I was thinking about this and went back and forth. In the end, the
>> > only reason for leaving it unbounded is to allow multiple independent
>> > users of the same register. For example, IMA and systemd could share a
>> > TDX RTMR. The systemd side would read the journal through the
>> > attestation device and the IMA side through securityfs, but both are
>> > views of the same journal. If one side truncated it, the other could no
>> > longer replay the RTMR. Isn't this the valid usecase? Do you see how to
>> > resolve this?
>> >
>> 
>> Bright minds have spent a significant amount of time working on this.
>> 
>> +Roberto Sassu, +Mimi Zohar
>> IMA logs and systemd logs are both system level concerns that are
>> relevant to the OS construction, not individual users,
>> so I would just say to reroute IMA to use ctlv using a kernel config
>> setting, then make systemd the new system manager of the holistic log.
>> The securityfs log contents can simply say, "log managed by ctlv" in
>> this setting, in the form of the template identifier.
>> For policy violations, only the 0... extend needs to go to ctlv.
>> IMA can still keep its violation log as a ring buffer when it's not a
>> 1-to-1 violation to extension
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyYUYbdiN_4
>
>I think for now we should not include a new dynamic log here, the uAPI
>around this Jiri drafted can remain a future step. I don't want to
>open complicated discussions about new functionality at this
>stage. The whole CTLV idea in general is a big enough thing to bite
>off for this series.

Okay, dropping the log from this set.

[..]