I
think you have lost some of the characteristics of locality in this mechanism,
and while I'm not sure what the precise ramifications of this are, I am sure
that redefining the characteristics of part of TPM access control mechanism
shouldn't be done without careful analysis first.
1)
Some localities are protected by the chipset, not the software running on a
machine. Locality 4 should only accessible by the Dynamic Root of Trust for
Measurement (DRTM). We currently have no virtual DRTM, but if we did, it would
need to be outside of the VM's OS in order to satisfy even the loosest
interpretation of the TCG DRTM definitions. With the driver specifying the
locality, I'm not sure how you will be able limit access to locality 4 to only
this "external" DRTM. Locality 3 also has special
considerations.
2) TPM
Localities are independent from each other. By putting each locality on it's own
page, standard memory protection mechanisms can enable different execution
contexts to access the appropriate locality and no other. In your mechanism, any
driver that can access the shared page can set any locality it wants. This
forces us down a different use model of having a single trusted driver who sets
locality based on the caller. This leads to a whole different set of questions.
How will the trusted driver identify which locality is appropriate based on the
caller? An ioctl won't give you this. A locality should be assignable to any
arbitrary execution context. What does this all mean for applications that
expect the traditional TPM model for localities?
I
think in order to keep the characteristics of the TPM locality model, we'd need
to have 4 shared pages. The Linux driver only needs to support 1 locality, but
flexibility to program it to point it at any locality 0-2 on initialization may
be valuable. If a virtual machine wants to use multiple localities, it
should have multiple TPM drivers (one per locality), just like TCG forces
for physical machines. A more privileged piece of code like a VMM or a trusted
reference monitor would use memory protection mechanisms to ensure each driver
can only access the correct locality page. How the software running in the VM
chooses to create these guarantees is up to them, just like in a physical
machine. The locality 4 page would always be inaccessible to code running in the
VM. Only some external DRTM code invoked by a hyper call or something would
be able to access the locality 4 page.
-Vinnie Scarlata
"Cihula, Joseph" <joseph.cihula@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote on 01/03/2008 08:48:41 PM:
> On Wednesday, January 02, 2008
11:27 AM, Stefan Berger wrote: > > Transfer TPM locality information in
the ring structure. Add a version > > identifier to the ring structure
for possible future extensions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan
Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Stefan, > > How
do you expect to use the locality value and how would it get set (to > a
non-zero value)?
The TIS interface offers
the different address ranges for using a locality. A TIS driver can make the
localities available through an ioctl(). A similar ioctl() could exist for the
xen driver that allows the client to choose which locality to use.
> > Since the locality value is provided by
the originating domain, it can't > really be "trusted" by the backend
without some other type of > validation.
Except for maybe checking that the value of the locality is not out of
range I don't see what else would need to be checked or is there maybe some
restriction for an OS to let applications use any other locality than locality
'0'?
Stefan
> > Joe
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|