MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Ya8MUOKPOKVfBfjJ@kernel.org>
References: <20211203192148.585399-1-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
 <YaxWXACBguZxWmKS@kernel.org> <CAD2FfiG9wfeW_2xxZqBi9vsjzEJBRjJUZw+AQy1Taos4fh2TLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Ya8MUOKPOKVfBfjJ@kernel.org>
From:   Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 16:45:56 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKgze5Y6F40bk=PgoS3LshcDEAreefOmF4xpCuSxgpiSr+99Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] x86: Show in sysfs if a memory node is able to do encryption
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc:     Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com>, 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On 12/7/21, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> 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 <rppt@kernel.org> 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.

Some time ago we discussed about this and concluded with Dave Hansen
that it was better to do it in this per-node way.

This is the archive of the relevant discussion:
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2006.2/06753.html