On 6/1/20 8:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 1, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Daniel P. Smith
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/1/20 3:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> .
>>
>> In other words, the log for the relaunch to attest what is currently
>> running is really no less useful than using the first
> On Jun 1, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Daniel P. Smith
> wrote:
>
> On 6/1/20 3:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
.
>
> In other words, the log for the relaunch to attest what is currently
> running is really no less useful than using the first launch log to
> attest to the what was running in the
On 6/1/20 3:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Jun 1, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Daniel P. Smith
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/1/20 12:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:33 AM Daniel P. Smith
wrote:
On 5/7/20 7:06 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Hi Łukasz,
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Daniel P. Smith
> wrote:
>
> On 6/1/20 12:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:33 AM Daniel P. Smith
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/7/20 7:06 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
Hi Łukasz,
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:38:02PM +0200, Lukasz
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:33 AM Daniel P. Smith
wrote:
>
> On 5/7/20 7:06 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > Hi Łukasz,
> >
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:38:02PM +0200, Lukasz Hawrylko wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 01:21 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> In OS-MLE table there is a buffer for
On 6/1/20 1:56 PM, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 6/1/20 12:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:33 AM Daniel P. Smith
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/7/20 7:06 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
Hi Łukasz,
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:38:02PM +0200, Lukasz Hawrylko wrote:
> On
On 6/1/20 12:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:33 AM Daniel P. Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/7/20 7:06 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>>> Hi Łukasz,
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:38:02PM +0200, Lukasz Hawrylko wrote:
On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 01:21 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>>
On 5/7/20 7:06 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Hi Łukasz,
>
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:38:02PM +0200, Lukasz Hawrylko wrote:
>> On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 01:21 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
...
>> In OS-MLE table there is a buffer for TPM event log, however I see that
>> you are not using it, but instead
Hi Daniel
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 13:06 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > There is a function that verifies if platform is TXT capable
> > -grub_txt_verify_platform(), it only checks SMX and GETSEC features.
> > Although BIOS should enforce both VMX and VT-d enabled when enabling
> > TXT, I think that
Hi Łukasz,
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:38:02PM +0200, Lukasz Hawrylko wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 01:21 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is an RFC patchset for the GRUB introducing the Intel TXT secure
> > launcher.
> > This is a part of larger work known as the TrenchBoot.
On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 01:21 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is an RFC patchset for the GRUB introducing the Intel TXT secure
> launcher.
> This is a part of larger work known as the TrenchBoot. Patchset can be split
> into two distinct parts:
> - 01-12: preparatory patches,
> -
Hi,
This is an RFC patchset for the GRUB introducing the Intel TXT secure launcher.
This is a part of larger work known as the TrenchBoot. Patchset can be split
into two distinct parts:
- 01-12: preparatory patches,
- 13-18: the Intel TXT secure launcher itself.
The initial implementation of
12 matches
Mail list logo
