abi: parse v3 attestation reports #141
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weiße <[email protected]>
|
I think formatting the family/model/stepping values in a uint32 the way they are expected to be in CPUID_1_EAX would be best if I'm honest, even if it's kind of weird looking. You'd have This should preclude needing ExtraPlatformInfo in the GUID table and a bunch of silliness in kds.go, but I won't block this PR on that. Just some cleanup. |
deeglaze
approved these changes
Nov 20, 2024
This was referenced Nov 20, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
On October 11th, AMD published revision 1.56 of the SEV-SNP Firmware ABI spec, which includes a new version for the attestation report struct.
The only change for the v3 report is the addition of cpuid family, model, and stepping information at bytes 0x188 to 0x18A.
This PR adds support for parse v3 reports.
I'm not super happy with the proto definition of the new fields as
bytes, since it's really just a single byte.If you have any better ideas on how to handle the values, please let me know.