Skip to content

Conversation

fdamato
Copy link
Collaborator

@fdamato fdamato commented Sep 11, 2025

…e Identity Provisioning Specification

…e Identity Provisioning Specification

Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Damato <[email protected]>
Comment on lines +373 to +375
- **SlotID**:

Identifies the certificate slot (valid range 1-7 for SPDM)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We also need to mention Param2, the KeyPairID. Else the Responder won't know where in the slot's cert chain to staple the proffered cert.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

agree. I missed that. Let me add it


Devices can only accommodate storage for a single tenant certificate at a time due to SRAM limitations. For multi-tenant scenarios, the device is not responsible for certificate provisioning coordination, and tenant certificate management must be handled at a higher layer in the system architecture.

### Confidential Virtual Machine (CVM) Considerations
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it would be worthwhile to define an OCP command for configuring the active SPDM cert chain for CVM. I.e., by default any CVM reports would use slot 0's chain that roots back to the vendor. But CSPs could provision their own cert into slot 1 (potentially using SPDM), and then separately send a command that instructs the CVM API surface to use the new chain.

May require defining an enum for {VENDOR, CSP, TENANT}, and requiring SPDM Responders to map their slot numbers to those enum values under the hood. Like, if you provision a cert to slot 1 (CSP) and then invoke OCP_CONFIGURE_CVM_CERT_CHAIN(CSP), then subsequent CVM reports will use slot 1.

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.

2 participants