Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Allow guest access to EFI confidential computing secret area

Gerd Hoffmann
2022-02-02T08:37:11Z

Hi,

> The only thing I personally struggle with here is whether "coco" is the
> best name for it, and whether there are reasonable use cases that
> wouldn't be directly related to confidential computing (eg, if the
> firmware on a bare-metal platform had a mechanism for exposing secrets
> to the OS based on some specific platform security state, it would seem
> reasonable to expose it via this mechanism but it may not be what we'd
> normally think of as Confidential Computing).
>
> But I'd also say that while we only have one implementation currently
> sending patches, it's fine for the code to live in that implementation
> and then be abstracted out once we have another.

The implementation can be sorted later when a second implementation
shows up, but it'll be better if we don't have to change the naming
convention.

"coco/efi_secrets" doesn't look like a good choice to me, given that it
is rather likely we see more users for this showing up.

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>".

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.

take care,
Gerd