[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27900.1289597013@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 21:23:33 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1.3 4/4] keys: add new key-type encrypted
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Why do you allow the master key to be supplied by a user-defined key rather
> > than requiring a trusted-key unconditionally?
>
> This is for systems without a TPM. The logic needs to exist, whether it
> is here or in EVM. By doing it here, a user could provide a passphrase
> in the initramfs, which is used to decrypt the encrypted key.
I thought that might be the case. In which case, it might be better to allow
someone to add a trusted key, supplying both encrypted and unencrypted
versions of the data so that the TPM need not be consulted. You might want to
mark such a key so that it can be seen when it is dumped.
But if you're going to use a user-defined key, you really need to prefix the
description with something suitable.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists