Standard measurement format #3155
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Steven Bellock <[email protected]>
jyao1
force-pushed
the
meas_report
branch
4 times, most recently
from
ddf9a5c to
7e459d2
Compare
|
@jyao1 since this is not an official DMTF specification the document should not have normative language like "should", "shall", and "must"; it is a descriptive document. A Verifier's documentation can use normative language if it wants, to specify that this must be followed. I might be able to discuss this with a wider audience at OCP Security on 29-July-2025. In particular to get feedback on where a document like this should reside, as well as the |
Rename existing one to Standard All-Measurements Report Definition. Signed-off-by: Jiewen Yao <[email protected]>
I changed |
| As such, the `GET_MEASUREMENTS` with `Param2` 2 and `ERROR` response are NOT included | ||
| in the measurement report. | ||
| Once the successfully received number of measurement block is `n`-1, the requester should send | ||
| the next `GET_MEASUREMENTS` with `SignatureRequested` set. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Under the current logic, an invalid or missing index (e.g., gap in sequence) triggers an error, leading to re-initialization of the L1/L2 transcript — thereby breaking attestation.
(DSP0274 describes that "An error response with any error code other than ResponseNotReady or LargeResponse
shall re-initialize L1/L2 to null".)
Does this cuase a problem in this process?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. Also need to check if the Responder-validator assumes this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, for 1-by-1, we need two rounds.
Round 1 is to collect valid index.
Round 2 is to collect measurement based on the valid index.
|
#3341 is the new PR. |
3 participants
This is based on https://github.com/steven-bellock/libspdm/tree/fix-3108, and add One-by-One Measurement Report format.
Ref #3108