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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FA4C433EF for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 07:25:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229588AbhLGH2v (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 02:28:51 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56792 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229449AbhLGH2v (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 02:28:51 -0500 Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:40e1:4800::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 323A5C061746; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 23:25:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5098CE19C0; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 07:25:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F4DAC341C1; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 07:25:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1638861917; bh=3+EBEsclmdbVbmRJP9A28/FcBv3FGPKlb25nC+tN2eY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=e5YgUf73UNZ0b/yOZ3VUpPzUsCta77XV7QUKl31k8FH9jWb6pGCNEN8yXiwmC0Y71 jTPwiSpJg1Sf5FsypTQENIUj1xQWjAXgb8Inrwnl0wDGAc5YPJo5ceZjdphsEbtvZ0 f5MQNQDYRf9ykL8gxqCX1ASNQYmMyFlcTzxhMQ6M2+1r/rwBoiWE4GkJGzlJujDMSP /AzN7MAAdq5NM/Khl1lfjL4IOLT0B3RQTOnw/pQSeUutJa2vuTSAfDl1fU9NTDiXgY C5sNIWghTjrwiaGN30TWcgVKcxmcvSrrLeIR20A6HOSQOqTzV6qxJOmCqtG8ZBHX3q Y54HQXzKWkbzw== Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 09:25:04 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Richard Hughes Cc: Martin Fernandez , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, dvhart@infradead.org, andy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com, alex.bazhaniuk@eclypsium.com, alison.schofield@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] x86: Show in sysfs if a memory node is able to do encryption Message-ID: References: <20211203192148.585399-1-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Hi Richard, On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 07:58:10PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 06:04, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 04:21:43PM -0300, Martin Fernandez wrote: > > > fwupd project plans to use it as part of a check to see if the users > > > have properly configured memory hardware encryption capabilities. > > I'm missing a description about *how* the new APIs/ABIs are going to be > > used. > > We're planning to use this feature in the Host Security ID checks done > at every boot. Please see > https://fwupd.github.io/libfwupdplugin/hsi.html for details. I'm happy > to answer questions or concerns. Thanks! Can you please describe the actual check for the memory encryption and how it would impact the HSI rating? I wonder, for example, why did you choose per-node reporting rather than per-region as described in UEFI spec. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.