From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793819511; b=YfVcQcdAnkzvoUmIuHocvd7stFzT9qnLpvwJh3JMiVn4MPuzWbKWWTA7j+rCPNjL4YiA BDb8YlG24Gydwr3PGeKG8WQwkVZxqrzG5M+Z0kz8+8tlOvYnuFGTgpmEs3G1dEdm3iBzs jKtlug9FuH/gZZOYPbiqgAPTBdhWJ6QaEZvEolae8c1fcG6ChmJQCGqv/SoFsRkENocbB WEJdeBgOzGLM6ZjV2npemadK/NXin2tlctMTrXLKMsqAIH9fKq/XebQvV28jN+pBNp29+ 0bouDDEno9FKRyfTOM/Mb6exsWKg3b8upmweoC+En6H9dFMDQQ68K6ThjDa1be01D7w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793819511; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc: Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=xiigALyHFVH3PBK5TlmDEvHxWG7fkvXh1nD+cSek+7w=; b=OAoI2l8ug6dWfFCi0ESscuhnLtBcWXnBXSDJFOSSPiR897Yd1hwDB8cAP5iX+vYn6h4B lVsYFDUuAQFBuxpH2mCjeNHFfKVm7K8VsdGiJLK2bL1gQTAbeqYIsF7gC0K5o3QsdTbGB DJOeZwNGv0AzpvB8iXLtUZmzM3D55PSi/qS3vMc6ana0Rnpxow4pjJ19fOoYTbfGiQAmF NfQPQn9BVUu84uD1+97gb1/3v5F6ttAuyNYxXcBqQdQLQq4+IQacND4fpUrVHePPy3DDE 0EF0JrNHR6eG8RqSPfb9ciC3onFHPBdTCH2abvQrldn7BJVRfEjHP+a40mGm0M9fWGg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=ZSBvcPKu; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE720606A331 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 19:11:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org DE720606A331 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=ZSBvcPKu Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050331650; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 11:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from e129823.arm.com (e129823.arm.com [10.2.213.3]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8441D3F673; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 11:11:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1793819510; bh=V+Gx6zriHP0k0OYX76UFXlquTwkTO7eEmccEIw5TWIQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZSBvcPKuvW9846WhqDxus2zzmbVzHBvQ2UweWIf4wiyhi/2k9qHhmDLZ+LBvgD6Eo OkIOMfAobMVc9DAoHw0tLZbvynJqNY0E8VZdfwkXbBqeQVmQsVBbqczJ79gsxGfxsv 2rqZfNgXPAX1lTvK3p+MbYdBH7l/8jJYxXL241Y0= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2026 19:11:44 +0000 From: Yeoreum Yun To: Jiri Pirko Cc: 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, jgg@ziepe.ca, 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 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> 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: <20261015145053.3664509-18-jiri@resnulli.us> [..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. 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. [...] -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun