On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Wei, Gang <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I have compared the tboot implementation in kernel 3.2.2 to that of xen, they are much different. The important files: tboot.c and tboot.h are supported differently in xen and kernel.henry del wrote on 2013-05-18:
>> Thank you for your prompt reply. Yet I have another question.>Correct. PCR17~22 can't be extended in locality 0.
>> According to the TXT spec, if GETSEC[SENTER] leaf function has not been
>> used to launch a measured environment, it's impossible to make use of
>> locality 1-4. Because registers in the private space can only be
>> accessed after a measured environment has been established, while these
>> registers control whether to unlock the locality 1-4. That means that
>> if bitvisor wants to use PCR, locality of which is above 0, bitvisor
>> need to support txt. Is that correct?
>> So if I port xen/arch/x86/tboot.c and relevant files into bitvisor
>> and modify the grub.lst, this way will work for bitvisor?
I think that both xen and kernel have full control of hardware sources when booted separatedly by tboot. Why do xen and linux kernel have a different implementation of tboot? Or is it enough for me only to refer to tboot support in xen when I work for bitvisor?