Skip to content

Vendor TAV 1.0.3#8067

Open
cjen1-msft wants to merge 3 commits into
microsoft:mainfrom
cjen1-msft:tee-attestation-verification-tav
Open

Vendor TAV 1.0.3#8067
cjen1-msft wants to merge 3 commits into
microsoft:mainfrom
cjen1-msft:tee-attestation-verification-tav

Conversation

@cjen1-msft

@cjen1-msft cjen1-msft commented Jul 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • vendor Microsoft TEE-Attestation-Verification tav-1.0.3 byte-for-byte
  • register the tagged upstream commit in cgmanifest.json

Follow-up

Testing

  • byte comparison against upstream tag tav-1.0.3 (8f8606adedee337a7ca80df163ebf6e267058845)
  • cgmanifest.json validation

@cjen1-msft
cjen1-msft force-pushed the tee-attestation-verification-tav branch 4 times, most recently from 69a942d to 90c7879 Compare July 15, 2026 13:31
cjen1-msft and others added 3 commits July 20, 2026 14:21
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Copilot-Session: 2ec11cce-7838-47b5-be19-21425a3a3bbf
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 2ec11cce-7838-47b5-be19-21425a3a3bbf
@cjen1-msft
cjen1-msft force-pushed the tee-attestation-verification-tav branch from 90c7879 to 2c5db7e Compare July 20, 2026 14:24
@cjen1-msft cjen1-msft changed the title Use TAV for SNP attestation verification Vendor TAV 1.0.3 Jul 20, 2026
@cjen1-msft
cjen1-msft marked this pull request as ready for review July 20, 2026 17:33
@cjen1-msft
cjen1-msft requested a review from a team as a code owner July 20, 2026 17:33
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 20, 2026 17:33

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot wasn't able to review this pull request because it exceeds the maximum number of lines (20,000). Try reducing the number of changed lines and requesting a review from Copilot again.

@achamayou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I wonder if we should switch to FetchContent for microsoft repositories rather than vendoring. This seems like a lot of churn and I don't think we have a significant availability concern intra-org.

@cjen1-msft

cjen1-msft commented Jul 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I wonder if we should switch to FetchContent for microsoft repositories rather than vendoring. This seems like a lot of churn and I don't think we have a significant availability concern intra-org.

I'm concerned about the tradeoff between verbosity and CI jobs randomly failing when FetchContent gets rate-limited randomly.

@achamayou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Fair point, that happens enough as it is with LTS lookups.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants