Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2 0/3] Introduce TdProtocol into EDK2

["Yao, Jiewen" <jiewen.yao@intel.com>]

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