linux-kernel - Re: [Tee-dev] [RFC v2 0/6] Introduce TEE based Trusted Keys support

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: <CAE=NcraqD9FNM0Gk9UGhPGi3heVzZrAKGc1gNZxoe1OnDaQ=pA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:30:06 +0300
From:   Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@...il.com>
To:     Rouven Czerwinski <r.czerwinski@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" <tee-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dhowells@...hat.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [Tee-dev] [RFC v2 0/6] Introduce TEE based Trusted Keys support

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:50 AM Rouven Czerwinski
<r.czerwinski@...gutronix.de> wrote:

> > I'm aware of it - I have implemented a large part of the GP TEE APIs
> > earlier (primarily the crypto functions). Does the TEE you work with
> > actually support GP properly? Can I take a look at the code?
>
> AFAIK Sumit is working with the OP-TEE implementation, which can be
> found on github: https://github.com/op-tee/optee_os

Thanks, I will take a look. The fundamental problem with these things
is that there are infinite amount of ways how TEEs and ROTs can be
done in terms of the hardware and software. I really doubt there are 2
implementations in existence that are even remotely compatible in real
life. As such, all things TEE/ROT would logically really belong in the
userland and thanks to the bpfilter folks now the umh logic really
makes that possible ... I think. The key implementation I did was just
an RFC on the concept, what if we start to move the stuff that really
belongs in the userspace to this pseudo-userland. It's not kernel, but
it's not commonly accessible userland either. The shared memory would
also work without any modifications between the umh based TEE/ROT
driver and the userland if needed.

Anyway, just my .02c. I guess having any new support in the kernel for
new trust sources is good and improvement from the current state. I
can certainly make my stuff work with your setup as well, what ever
people think is the best.

--
Janne