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=41j2JzXN4IlsQywk5Z/0s3FIuwbMHpiJujL88cp7XoIwl3MDhmf1AK1RKUTq/7OM1Fnm 9VOTtGfgoTf7ZnyuUQXVC9+sPDkIgubV4HedrHTKER5kYeOB8kIO+icY/kN3z2P3nIqBC XBWqtEdb4iS82hnlCkdhGZk20Y0wdHcOQ7FrMJ+9ejWI2z8UfTsKvlyFhIDh4iKMa+Ihw TKoJUFwXnh3btBiVZYvPhorEwAq0T2LlP971lH7fyWKC+l46t9A0jGRhbX466qCuYw4Z7 UlfGLUNjlubED6MA6HS0rsafVBYXOT9DQxmI5hvgaz+k5GCIah5/v0fxZO0yN78RObA== 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=2Vw2UqUUmrJrywqM+Lrex2uibsM0B7FZ5Jq30SWLLO9L+3Ucpe+UwwNalxidIVhO2BMf goR7G+ZohjRGX8Pzpt+FgMYtaF94XCFv/cSIzhOkLUsGm2kVxrrPJnEyf3jq06cp7sZH7 nP3UkVRMdPlEb3OFPmqizuQxmHTKNsP86NHfres7ZjOCc4KOAnQ7Thh6BNRrtAaUSG+rK jMxVZDnH6u9KT76mbMXuLxyHavA8Tl+VCzlatXWlYvKhwcEmPTOsqsddN3B4LZqORuBJf VYw19ZnbhJaxt3RVmTOk5+mmr6IofmRQ60dWSnVg5IplpKnOuF1ryDoSmyY27vigYHg== 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 DE68A606A330; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 19:11:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org DE68A606A330 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-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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