From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.128.51 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793975124; b=hmBf8mKESCFw3QyupKJwRaNllhmnQT8hUxips+yCYaixwmbB1tQQnS4YtJKeVp6AXRp1 VwqMSC5KDU+qwe7AMExKAv+2rTw5yzbzBjDGxG0I20n8Di142vsIaNH5TUQmIw6wRUFKi o8Jre17jyh6Qo8AcNm8IIX4dCPbyzcMfmlEinp5gisusfwGtVKuzGOSiMUN5ghc4tuC6u dTutyVehscwgWon62zjeVWUtA8h+haVrSK0RY2ZK6dWh/oJiTq9VMqW85Mofw+7wOl11z nW8sr/Twoe5Ze5xh8RxEwfXG0AYGEDLjV3Ssz8KMj/NDDuoTwsWjHyyMSMvIyV12xBA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793975124; 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=XjubV5JgjeqjPXQH1+nVKdJIc9BEV5NX4y8ymGv5/6U=; b=oUDM10x0wteF9Vde72CRcxYZPV7812sIqx7arfQQnjPplKzPGDdlo4/ricHfNEOxFy5j wts8Xas9nhaWM8BOAt07r5Mim7l/tPgHR76vhkiPW20bPl65Z9Ui4G8eviCWkOa2kJqZQ c50OV21UfRVuowjjWlnegcrZ7urBYoWqEpLSilpVPtTIra3ixVzJg2GC1zcNj0/iPO9H2 Ak1i8Qz5OPqVi4L24DNMrW9fWw9bO1JQREg1TNCZNIadswObAZ6BX0zUr1MdV7FBREPRI EaIKwFSC2PRMAXx/JPVYpRm/OdZcYEuFooJaOBdB6OhbiNKIY5z8M650Qw6A+wSy6Cw== 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=pUp7u6F0; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.128.51 Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com (mail-wm1-f51.google.com [209.85.128.51]) (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 C97C4606A32F for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 14:25:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org C97C4606A32F 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=pUp7u6F0 Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a5177d78c7so6673325e9.2 for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 06:25:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=resnulli.us; s=google; t=1793975121; x=1794579921; darn=lists.linux.dev; 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=XjubV5JgjeqjPXQH1+nVKdJIc9BEV5NX4y8ymGv5/6U=; b=pUp7u6F0REst+vXoxCc1mv61/0zt12nXxw0QN/utT2Lxa50ysGjjTfFSiowIf6xBdV v3pl5KfJG0hU7B3O//fsn3fwuH8CR66G4eFu+nqBR0Qm/0Syx8q2HK77hKfhnK+BMKq1 EPrwPPBrfhyZQUT2A9Gao9RjGfEUWsjs/VuEsSabnWbgjEZcp8+WGpogWPJV+Jxho43N 9RuIkdWN1FzNRVw5CWbN/tIUGpGwfFjdLv3I61ONG/zG1RQEpGdrtHW1ya76GGbCxcmv YEyGdKeFNc0qze2HeMiXQiAc0Kq6z8VldekheP6Qmmbfevgfg7K2PFeIul1ehBaBdzpe 77BQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1793975121; x=1794579921; 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=XjubV5JgjeqjPXQH1+nVKdJIc9BEV5NX4y8ymGv5/6U=; b=tcVBeg6rG4ufzWiFnFsGpaWOXYMNw+NLd1XFRSge7va+b349wkpmpHAkB1zdmdlAIk JYotb0LrCGXPuFbB/evcihm5sfTJBWmJDpYWbScyrfxWnB6qt5B5fRxn71Uhg5+Ogr+W 8v9716KSiJKq4IBnddvIvX4lwnjjZ/NsCvOPBkq2lIy0M5AKBaAy6ttGvYaBMw8mHyVD oNRPpRBooXSY6AGIFktS9UL6LJtV6aj//C04W9+ol6TsU63G3ccVJsHtjnOU10bVDv9D 5M1+9D37zx7pX3tUqY00MOeIP1v30gep1E/pxUmzd/X4XvQv7hEGlvWBVHGqc+MMoawh ehjw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBzv+nBvapkHs7wd1/JnWo5wuGcjY2jGGhHOG9Qi7VkY6h/1OBYAsZ9UFJJsH90aQxoFm9aECJH9q9C5@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: APuU4Z9RphxYTvlq93EDw8JBmOU4gsKyCoWCWWOPsu/rTtYRnTjvOBOY ZOCgoj1oLjy4BWWE6+f95sP/RADgpA7V9KGPMJLHySUeVA+WEbAH/gj5RfbSm+8GOy4= X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou2bb9Wtm4Y73rLJi69w2w69cSazd4a1caJB0ke3pN6XfxMSAQ/TzQWN8fsOyO8 jwyipib9jxcYPTc6RJzIAywDSiB2tOVjQZPkb6mD+GwfJCdNXbiwBB6xoUz89swDJprEBBR1i+N 0wsObRdHwjrSI4BPgSign+Y9ff63XrzuwGfku0ihQVHib34P5qcNequViB9dIl6zOf8qi82TFys iM5mUBE1xgkJgctVJUVEG85jL8h5YzP9YD3NH7T1UyvojCg3sEYVgh9eQxTedhMUnu06gn9zAkM y4N2YGeMoTw9jVQ8EF4o+CVuPsQ17bndbn/PHfAQ3SxFCExW9ZlVOxS1E3y08iojpdAsC0s5sDX JPnJ3XJR3IiDzWUvpxur+pi249OOEETezOokiRyQd8FpMgroWj7zk1bfg0hqphvjo8AlPASEjmQ eZMBq1Xh0hkb31Zhd2cCzfO7y6Vx0UAURZIqre+WgQd7D7RzRyGv1M5L5de2YojralMTmYTwVox 0hoxW4G8hM3nqg1NXDB4Dg+MaLypum8S5QRp886Ua2aK+IgNRC9uMrtbmCWJ5taXuDevIL6Cp74 CqVf4jjQQXNDxqrYajfSzGOEYr7yObpzum44 X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5307:b0:4a1:e00b:a10b with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4b6de973c39mr43606025e9.7.1793975120493; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 06:25:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([208.127.45.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4b571f46538sm136357845e9.5.2026.11.06.06.25.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 06 Nov 2026 06:25:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2026 15:25:15 +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-coco@lists.linux.dev 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 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. > >[...] >> armcca event-log event-log none Realm firmware log, if any > >JFYI, this would be a CCEL log like tdx: > - https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/issues/11384 Okay. > > >> snp report signed 64 SNP attestation report >> snp cert-table cert-chain none VCEK or VLEK, ASK and ARK >> ====== ============ ========== ========= =========================== >> >> Did I miss something that would break us here? >> >> CTLV layout draft: >> >> device-get reply, caps.evidence: >> objects[16]: >> id: uint(..15) >> class: evidence-class >> # The reply says which one was written. >> formats[4]: evidence-format >> max-length: uint >> # Signed objects only, entries as today. >> challenge-lengths[8]?: ... >> # Descriptive, such as an SPDM slot. >> instance?: uint(..u32-max) >> # When the TCB vouches for the object with a digest. >> tcb-digest-algo?: hash-algo >> >> evidence-get request: >> # Required exactly when a signed object is named. >> challenge?: binary(1..4K) >> objects[16]: >> id: uint(..15) >> data: blob(out, va memfd dma-buf) >> # selection, privlevel, service and options as now. >> >> evidence-get reply: >> # In request order. >> objects[16]: >> format: evidence-format >> length: uint >> tcb-digest?: >> hash-algo: hash-algo >> data: binary(16..64) >> # The generations as now. >> >> Makes sense? > >For me, It seems fine. > >-- >Sincerely, >Yeoreum Yun