From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk (cavan.codon.org.uk [176.126.240.207])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2055B2C80
	for <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>; Wed,  2 Feb 2022 08:45:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by cavan.codon.org.uk (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 8C04C40A51; Wed,  2 Feb 2022 08:45:34 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:45:34 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	Dov Murik <dovmurik@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
	Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>,
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Andrew Scull <ascull@google.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
	Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@redhat.com>,
	Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
	Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@linux.ibm.com>,
	Jim Cadden <jcadden@ibm.com>,
	Daniele Buono <dbuono@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>, dougmill@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	gcwilson@linux.ibm.com, gjoyce@ibm.com,
	"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Allow guest access to EFI confidential computing
 secret area
Message-ID: <20220202084534.GA10247@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <Yfk6vEuZFtgtA+G+@kroah.com>
 <37779659ca96ac9c1f11bcc0ac0665895c795b54.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220202040157.GA8019@srcf.ucam.org>
 <YfogOurPZb7+Yelo@kroah.com>
 <20220202065443.GA9249@srcf.ucam.org>
 <YfotMyQiQ66xfCOQ@kroah.com>
 <20220202071023.GA9489@srcf.ucam.org>
 <CAMj1kXFTyc9KnMsnvs+mt80DbJL8VGKKcQ0J=4NrGYGSAG8sRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220202080401.GA9861@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20220202083653.p3cb4w3qdud4e33t@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev
List-Id: <linux-coco.lists.linux.dev>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-coco+subscribe@lists.linux.dev>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-coco+unsubscribe@lists.linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220202083653.p3cb4w3qdud4e33t@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 09:36:53AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:

> Having a "secrets/" directory looks good to me.  Then the individual
> implementations can either add files to the directory, i.e. efi_secrets
> would create "secrets/<guid>" files.  Or each implementation creates a
> subdirectory with the secrets, i.e. "secrets/coco/" and
> "secrets/coco/<guid>".

I prefer a subdirectory, on the basis that we could conceivably end up 
with more than one implementation on a single device at some point, and 
also because it makes it trivial for userland to determine what the 
source is which may make a semantic difference under certain 
circumstances.
 
> Longer-term (i.e once we have more than one implementation) we probably
> need a separate module which owns and manages the "secrets/" directory,
> and possibly provides some common helper functions too.

Agree.