On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 7:57 PM Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 4/28/25 17:04, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> >> OK, but why do this in Linux as opposed to tboot? Right now, much of the
> >> TXT magic is done outside of the kernel. Why do it *IN* the kernel?
> >
> > There was a patch set submitted to tboot to
On 4/28/25 17:04, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>> OK, but why do this in Linux as opposed to tboot? Right now, much of the
>> TXT magic is done outside of the kernel. Why do it *IN* the kernel?
>
> There was a patch set submitted to tboot to add AMD support. It was
> rejected as tboot is solely focused
Hi Dave!
On 4/25/25 10:12, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 4/25/25 03:12, Rich Persaud wrote:
On Apr 24, 2025, at 2:45 PM, Dave Hansen
wrote:
On 4/21/25 09:26, Ross Philipson wrote:
This patchset provides detailed documentation of DRTM, the
approach used for adding the capbility, and relevant API/AB
On 4/25/25 03:12, Rich Persaud wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2025, at 2:45 PM, Dave Hansen
> wrote:
>> On 4/21/25 09:26, Ross Philipson wrote:
>>> This patchset provides detailed documentation of DRTM, the
>>> approach used for adding the capbility, and relevant API/ABI
>>> documentation. In addition t
On Apr 24, 2025, at 2:45 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/21/25 09:26, Ross Philipson wrote:
>> This patchset provides detailed documentation of DRTM, the approach used for
>> adding the capbility, and relevant API/ABI documentation. In addition to the
>> documentation the patch set introduces Inte
On 4/21/25 09:26, Ross Philipson wrote:
> This patchset provides detailed documentation of DRTM, the approach used for
> adding the capbility, and relevant API/ABI documentation. In addition to the
> documentation the patch set introduces Intel TXT support as the first platform
> for Linux Secure L
On 4/22/25 14:26, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> So if that is true (I'm not a x86 uarch expert by any measure), then
> pushing back on this series on the basis that it is ugly and intrusive
> is not really reasonable. From security pov, I think D-RTM is an
> important feature and it deserves to be upstre
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 20:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> On 21/04/2025 9:52 pm, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > Purely from the amount of interest and review tags and the whole "v14"
> > thing, it doesn't look like this is very important to anyone. Not to be
> > to flippant about it, but if nobody else cares
On 4/22/25 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 21/04/2025 9:52 pm, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> Purely from the amount of interest and review tags and the whole "v14"
>> thing, it doesn't look like this is very important to anyone. Not to be
>> to flippant about it, but if nobody else cares, why should I (or
On 21/04/2025 9:52 pm, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Purely from the amount of interest and review tags and the whole "v14"
> thing, it doesn't look like this is very important to anyone. Not to be
> to flippant about it, but if nobody else cares, why should I (or the
> other x86 maintainers)?
There are se
On 21/04/2025 9:52 pm, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/21/25 09:26, Ross Philipson wrote:
>> The larger focus of the TrenchBoot project (https://github.com/TrenchBoot)
>> is to
>> enhance the boot security and integrity in a unified manner.
> Hey Folks,
>
> It isn't immediately apparent what these 5,000
On 4/21/25 09:26, Ross Philipson wrote:
> The larger focus of the TrenchBoot project (https://github.com/TrenchBoot) is
> to
> enhance the boot security and integrity in a unified manner.
Hey Folks,
It isn't immediately apparent what these 5,000 lines of code do which is
new, why they are import
12 matches
Mail list logo
