Re: [PATCH RFC 20/20] attestation: Add the TDX family implementation

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:07:28PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-10-15 at 16:50 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Connect the attestation family to the native TDX service. Expose
> > TDREPORT, Quote, MRTD and RTMR operations while preserving the existing
> > native interfaces.
> 
> Along the lines of some of the other commenters I'm not clear on the benefits of
> the unified TD/VM attestation part of this.
> 
> Especially when you talk about a TD report, it is pretty specific to TDX. So
> calling user code is going to need to know about TDX anyway. In fact the report
> won't have all the details of the TD either. Going forward it's main function is
> to serve as a nonce transport blob and it only has TD details because of legacy
> constraints about SGX based attestation. So just a quirky TDX specific part of
> the flow on the way to get a quote.

I think in the way this stuff ended up being used the userspace isn't
actually aware. It just wants the VM's ROT to sign a challenge and
forward the resulting blobs to a remote verifier. The verifier needs
to be aware of the format, but the collection agent should not need
special knowledge.

ie from the perspective of systemd-report it doesn't make alot of
sense to have it know every single special configfs path and protocol
for each CC vendor just to get a 'sign my challenge' operation.

That's the general north star here. We'd like all the vendors to be
able to do collection without having to change systemd for every new
innovation. Again I'm looking at 5-10 ROTs in our platforms, it is not
desirable to go and teach systemd about each of them.

So broadly, this requires a challenge to go in, a signed blob to come
out, possibly some suppelmentary blob[s] (like certificates), and then
labels for what is inside each.

Userspace would collect all the blobs and the labels then ship them to
the verifier which has to understand how the data described by the
label is organized.

I don't know what "nonce transport blob" means in the future, nonce
without signature sounds like a strange thing.

> One idea... Not sure on it. We are currently working on support for DICE based
> attestation for TDX. This is an industry standard and AFAIU other vendors will
> (want to?) support it too. Perhaps if we could have a single way to ask for for
> DICE based quote, it could make a cross vendor interface more useful? Callers
> could just call and get some standard format they can understand. It might take
> some work on the TDX side to ensure the DICE format quote.

Yes other people have asked about DICE interfaces for other ROT
devices. AFAICT DICE is more about having a standard data format, and
you are right about everything..

Like SPDM I imagine a set of interfaces defined by the DICE specs, but
we'd probably still want to have the basic 'sign a nonce' interface
for opaque transport.

So from a TDX perspective, what would you want to have as labeled
blobs for this kind of operation, now and later and maybe someday with
DICE?

Jason