Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cca: Get the evidence from EAR (EAT Attesation Result) #241

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 7, 2023

Conversation

chendave
Copy link
Member

CCA validation by the Verasion has some overlapping with the RVPS, the similar validation has been done by the Verasion already. So the validation of evidence in CoCo is not needed in theory.

The parse of the CCA token here is to align with other verifier, e.g. TDX, and to support RVPS if that is the case of future planning.

NOTE that each of the value we get from EAR is base64 encoded hex value. So, the reference value that are registered for RVPS are expected to be base64 encoded hex value as well.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-ar4si/

@chendave
Copy link
Member Author

also cc other reviewers for review, cc @Xynnn007 @fitzthum @jialez0

this is replacement of the confidential-containers/attestation-service#159

Copy link
Member

@Xynnn007 Xynnn007 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @chendave Only some small nits

attestation-service/verifier/Cargo.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
attestation-service/verifier/src/cca/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
attestation-service/verifier/src/cca/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
attestation-service/verifier/src/cca/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@chendave chendave force-pushed the evidence branch 2 times, most recently from 7e78c87 to 3ae3097 Compare November 28, 2023 06:26
@@ -130,156 +154,104 @@ impl Verifier for CCA {
warn!("CCA currently does not support parse `cca_realm_personalization_value`. Init data hash check skipped.");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we support to verify this item after this PR?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, I will push one additional commit to fix it.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

pls see: 90fb4b6

@chendave chendave force-pushed the evidence branch 6 times, most recently from 54dc0ab to 65a0379 Compare November 29, 2023 03:21
CCA validation by the Verasion has some overlapping with the RVPS,
the similar validation has been done by the Verasion already.
So the validation of evidence in CoCo is not needed in theory.

The parse of the CCA token here is to align with other verifier,
e.g. TDX, and to support RVPS if that is the case of future planning.

NOTE that each of the value we get from EAR is base64 encoded hex value.
So, the reference value that are registered for RVPS are expected to
be base64 encoded hex value as well.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-ar4si/

Signed-off-by: Dave Chen <[email protected]>
@chendave
Copy link
Member Author

chendave commented Dec 4, 2023

rebased to remove the merge conflict.

kindly ping @fitzthum @jialez0 @sameo GM, could you pls have a double check?

Copy link
Member

@fitzthum fitzthum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@chendave
Copy link
Member Author

chendave commented Dec 7, 2023

Can we merge this? or anything else I can do?

Now, the init data will be checked against the value from CCA token.

Signed-off-by: Dave Chen <[email protected]>
@Xynnn007 Xynnn007 merged commit eebaa97 into confidential-containers:main Dec 7, 2023
6 checks passed
@chendave chendave deleted the evidence branch December 7, 2023 08:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants