Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <169570181657.596431.6178773442587231200.stgit@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com>
 <169570182987.596431.14062417344858914481.stgit@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com>
 <c3d347a7-58d6-4830-aad4-d354b83f0704@linux.intel.com> <CA+1=6yfmLXJbZu7Gd7cp_HOAbmHwx54aPgozWKBikWwZSYTOZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6513e6079a427_91c1e294e@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch> <CA+1=6yeP6dDiXVQrxMt0AaEF_7S05p4Do67=ysXK-Chfvu-9ow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+1=6yeP6dDiXVQrxMt0AaEF_7S05p4Do67=ysXK-Chfvu-9ow@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 08:38:16 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMkAt6ohEnYwC8yVzye0F4gApvuyktHDP-q8-p7gJnSAyRMR_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] configfs-tsm: Introduce a shared ABI for
 attestation reports
To:     Thomas Fossati <thomas.fossati@linaro.org>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, peterz@infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 2:25=E2=80=AFAM Thomas Fossati
<thomas.fossati@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 10:21, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wr=
ote:
> > It can be expanded when/if those platforms expand the
> > size of the supported user data, or another configfs-tsm backend arrive=
s
> > that needs that capability.
>
> Makes sense, thanks.

I'm not familiar with the rats eat spec but I would assume the
protocol would acquire more than just the nonce in the inblob.
Probably some combination of claims, nonce, and information about a
public key? Does the specification allow for the data needing to be
signed by the TSM to be hashed first?