From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.8871.1636014052916210204
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Thu, 04 Nov 2021 01:20:53 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=PrJwQjWm;
 spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 170.10.133.124, mailfrom: kraxel@redhat.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
	s=mimecast20190719; t=1636014052;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=E7HNeuNNtisHn7fotCV/ILnIIJZX001bJcNPGJZHfDc=;
	b=PrJwQjWmzAf3YA2KfOKynRif135BNcVbyUwN8Z6qjpUzlTzz06oPPUWUMIDCdNax+PNdc+
	VOQg6xpzu3WGZXnF51D3uOaHhxdLQwrfbFFD8GYf2sSvIMO8BiEwg4k/hX5cuNRJywiQ59
	oX8dp0ktI9C/9eJ/vMlNymZQavsUR5o=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com
 [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id
 us-mta-396-aqNQvRCJOjqVaY3BzT32Vg-1; Thu, 04 Nov 2021 04:20:46 -0400
X-MC-Unique: aqNQvRCJOjqVaY3BzT32Vg-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F172379EDD;
	Thu,  4 Nov 2021 08:20:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.194.99])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74EDE19C79;
	Thu,  4 Nov 2021 08:20:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id ACFAF1800923; Thu,  4 Nov 2021 09:20:41 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 09:20:41 +0100
From: "Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com>
To: Sami Mujawar <sami.mujawar@arm.com>
Cc: Min Xu <min.m.xu@intel.com>, devel@edk2.groups.io,
	Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
	Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>,
	Zhiguang Liu <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>,
	Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>,
	Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] SecurityPkg: Support CcMeasurementProtocol in DxeTpmMeasurementLib
Message-ID: <20211104082041.dlkl52izdlo7c4uh@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
References: <cover.1635818903.git.min.m.xu@intel.com>
 <44a80d4605e02dcf5fed85c5669aedbff3a283a1.1635818903.git.min.m.xu@intel.com>
 <3f1ba671-cb5f-7849-9439-9af6326de84a@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3f1ba671-cb5f-7849-9439-9af6326de84a@arm.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com;
	auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=kraxel@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

  Hi,

> [SAMI] Apologies, I missed this in my previous review. I think the behaviour
> if both the TCG2 and CC measurement protocols are installed
> would be inconsistent between DxeTpmMeasurementLib and
> DxeTpm2MeasureBootLib. The main difference being in the later, the
> TCG2 protocol takes precedence for extending the measurement.

Yes, we should have consistent behavior in both cases.

> I think it would be good to modify DxeTpm2MeasureBootLib so that the CC
> measurement protocol is used if both protocols are installed. What do you
> think?

Does it makes sense to use both protocols?

take care,
  Gerd