linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 6/7] doc: keys: Document usage of TEE based Trusted Keys

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: <CAFA6WYP7qi_NBRUDBhcEAEzJY-iFvJdXqtCtgQxqAvPSXDjEng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:07:23 +0530
From:   Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>, corbet@....net,
        dhowells@...hat.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        tee-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/7] doc: keys: Document usage of TEE based Trusted Keys

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 21:04, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 04:00:32PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > Provide documentation for usage of TEE based Trusted Keys via existing
> > user-space "keyctl" utility. Also, document various use-cases.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
>
> Sorry missed this patch. Anyway, I don't think we want multiple trusted
> keys subsystems. You have to fix the existing one if you care to get
> these changes in. There is no really other way around this.
>

I understand your point.

When I initially looked at trusted key implementation, it seemed to be
tightly coupled to use TPM device. So I implemented a parallel
implementation to get initial feedback (functionality-wise) on this
new approach.

I will work on abstraction of trusted key apis to use either approach.
But is it fine with you if I send if I send a separate RFC patch for
abstraction and later once reviewed I will incorporate that patch in
this patch-set.

It will be really helpful if you could help to test that abstraction
patch with a real TPM device as I doesn't posses one to test.

-Sumit

> /Jarkko