Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] Introduce TdProtocol into EDK2


Yao, Jiewen
 

Hi Sami
I am not sure if I can understand your comment -
"Some interfaces may need to use an architecture specific library, and some configuration options would need to be defined using PCDs."

Would you please be more specific?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

-----Original Message-----
From: Xu, Min M <min.m.xu@intel.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 1:41 PM
To: Sami Mujawar <Sami.Mujawar@arm.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io; Yao,
Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Liming Gao
<gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Liu, Zhiguang <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>; Wang,
Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Lu, Ken <ken.lu@intel.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2 0/3] Introduce TdProtocol into EDK2

On October 12, 2021 11:27 PM, Sami Mujawar wrote:
Hi Min,

Thank you for this patch.

I think it would greatly help if the EFI_TD_PROTOCOL is changed to something
more architecture neutral. As I understand, this patch series is removing the
dependency on TPM for measurement and is instead providing a lightweight
interface for extending measurements for Confidential Compute Architecture
(CCA) guests.

Considering this, it would be good to generalise EFI_TD_PROTOCOL as a
Confidential Compute Architecture Measurement (CCAM) protocol.
In fact, your v2 series demonstrates this need with the introduction of
MEASURE_BOOT_PROTOCOLS in "[PATCH V2 2/3] SecurityPkg: Support
TdProtocol in DxeTpm2MeasureBootLib
[https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/81651]".

As it stands, I feel most of the code can be reused/common. Some interfaces
may need to use an architecture specific library, and some configuration
options would need to be defined using PCDs.

Kindly let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for your comments. Let me first discuss your feedback with our
architecture. We will reply to your proposal a bit later.

Thanks.
Min

Join devel@edk2.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.