Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 08:18:59 +0100
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>,
        Alec Brown <alec.r.brown@oracle.com>,
        Kanth Ghatraju <kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com>,
        Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com>,
        "dpsmith@apertussolutions.com" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>,
        "piotr.krol@3mdeb.com" <piotr.krol@3mdeb.com>,
        "krystian.hebel@3mdeb.com" <krystian.hebel@3mdeb.com>,
        "persaur@gmail.com" <persaur@gmail.com>,
        "Yoder, Stuart" <stuart.yoder@arm.com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        "michal.zygowski@3mdeb.com" <michal.zygowski@3mdeb.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        "lukasz@hawrylko.pl" <lukasz@hawrylko.pl>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        The development of GNU GRUB <grub-devel@gnu.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: Linux DRTM on UEFI platforms
Message-ID: <20220330071859.GA992@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20220329174057.GA17778@srcf.ucam.org>
 <CAMj1kXE-7yPTBgQQKXRnQbdvLMv6D7=CowtQ38PdpPVa3SW-Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220330071103.GA809@srcf.ucam.org>
 <CAMj1kXE9WrBOUG6MRQ90cMH_NvvCw_jVCar5Dsj+gkZr1AA0MQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXE9WrBOUG6MRQ90cMH_NvvCw_jVCar5Dsj+gkZr1AA0MQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 09:12:19AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 09:11, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> > The EFI stub carries out a bunch of actions that have meaningful
> > security impact, and that's material that should be measured. Having the
> > secure launch kernel execute the stub without awareness of what it does
> > means it would need to measure the code without measuring the state,
> > while the goal of DRTM solutions is to measure state rather than the
> > code.
> 
> But how is that any different from the early kernel code?

From a conceptual perspective we've thought of the EFI stub as being 
logically part of the bootloader rather than the early kernel, and the 
bootloader is a point where the line is drawn. My guy feeling is that 
jumping into the secure kernel environment before EBS has been called is 
likely to end badly.