linux-kernel - RE: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH 4/4] keys, trusted: seal/unseal with TPM 2.0 chips

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724D9D7AEBD5@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de>
Date:	Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:36:18 +0000
From:	"Fuchs, Andreas" <andreas.fuchs@....fraunhofer.de>
To:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	"tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	"David Safford" <safford@...ibm.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	"josh@...htripplet.org" <josh@...htripplet.org>,
	"richard.l.maliszewski@...el.com" <richard.l.maliszewski@...el.com>,
	"monty.wiseman@...el.com" <monty.wiseman@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH 4/4] keys,	trusted: seal/unseal with TPM
 2.0 chips

> > Regarding the in-kernel "minimal resource manager": AFAIK there is
> > already a tpm-mutex inside the kernel. We could use that mutex and
> > then have the algorithm:
> >
> > [SNIP]
> 
> I don't care about one purpose hacks. Second, I don't care about pseudo
> code (at least not for "too big things"). It has tendency to mask
> unexpected details. If you want to propose something, please go through
> the patch process.
> 
> > We don't need anything more fancy than this. And it should even
> > guarantee that the old values are still present after mutex_release,
> > so (opposed to a full-blown resource-manager) we do not need to keep
> > track and rewrite virtual handles inside the user-space commands.
> >
> > IMHO, this should be lightweight enough even for the most embedded of
> > applications, since the 2*2k blobs are only allocated on demand...
> 
> It's still unnecessary functionality and increases the kernel image size
> and every hack requires maintenance. It would probably end up needing
> compilation flag as there exists efforts like:
> 
> https://tiny.wiki.kernel.org/
> 
> My simple and stupid solution does not *prevent* adding better
> synchronization. I would go with that and implement access broker
> properly and not for just one use case later on.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to write up some code for this myself atm.
Other priorities unfortunately.

I was just pointing out, that the proposed patch will not fit in with
the current approach in TSS2.0, before this user-facing kernel API is
set in stone and _corrected_ new syscalls need to be added later.

Also, the pseudo-code proposal should be a proper minimal access broker
that should solve most accesses to TPM transient objects down the road. 
Session-brokering is a different beast of course.

Cheers,
Andreas--
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/