linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/22] KEYS: Support TPM-wrapped key and crypto ops

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: <219367882d33fda9705485aa4a40b2ef55f3992f.camel@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:45:26 +0100
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:     Denis Kenzior <denkenz@...il.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] KEYS: Support TPM-wrapped key and crypto ops

On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 09:26 +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> > > > Yes.  It shouldn't be much code, either.  You still have to check for X.509
> > > > DER since the kernel currently supports that.
> > > 
> > > For reasons of backward compatibility, correct?  The kernel also has
> > > mscode.asn1 which we would need to support as well.  Since we can't break
> > > compatibility then perhaps this doesn't buy us a whole lot in the end.
> > 
> > Don't worry about mscode - that's not an asymmetric key parser.  That's only
> > ever used directly from verify_pefile_signature().
> > 
> > Currently, we have to retain support for DER-encoded X.509.
> > 
> > But there's no reason we can't have a PEM parser that decodes the PEM and
> > selects X.509, PKCS#8 or TPM based on the ascii header in that.  PKCS#8 and
> > TPM don't need to take DER directly.
> 
> since we have to support DER-encoded anyway, can we get the current
> patches merged (with fixes to the commit messages for the openssl
> examples if needed) and then work on PEM support inside the kernel.
> For me these seems to be two independent features. And in the current
> form the patches have been tested and used.
> 
> Or let me ask this differently, are there any objections to merging
> these patches with just DER support?

Let me rephrase that question slightly: Are we happy to have to make
inferences from the ASN.1 structure, and in particular that a bare
OCTET-STRING is a TPMv1 blob? I believe James ended up doing something
somewhat more sensible for the TPMv2 blob so that might end up being
OK...?


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)