Add initial support for SVSM vTPM-based attestation #575
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Later versions of Linux use a unified configfs interface for providing architecture-specific TEE attestations. This new message encodes required attributes as their own fields and optional attributes as pairs of attribute name and value, separated by binary or readable.
This is insufficient since the attestation key is not going to be the L-1 endorsement key.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is not a complete solution because the initial SVSM attestation protocol only supports binding to a storage EK. Both "AK" and "gceAK" conflict with this. There is no attestation and verification flow in go-tpm-tools for AKs that are certified by a CA with ActivateCredential. It is out of scope of this PR to add support for that.
As for the proposed SVSM_ATTEST_SINGLE_SERVICE_EX protocol addition that I expect to be usable from Linux with a "manifest_selector" configfs report attribute (https://github.com/deeglaze/amdese-linux/commits/vtpm612ex/), we have yet to get any specification update from AMD on how far their SVSM spec will diverge from my proposal implemented in coconut-svsm/svsm#719