linux-kernel - Re: [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]

Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:59:51 +0300
From:   Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@...il.com>
To:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
Cc:     keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, dhowells@...hat.com,
        jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" <tee-dev@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/6] Introduce TEE based Trusted Keys support

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:40 AM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org> wrote:

> > I chose the userspace plugin due to this, you can use userspace aids
> > to provide any type of service. Use the crypto library you desire to
> > do the magic you want.
>
> Here TEE isn't similar to a user-space crypto library. In our case TEE
> is based on ARM TrustZone which only allows TEE communications to be
> initiated from privileged mode. So why would you like to route
> communications via user-mode (which is less secure) when we have
> standardised TEE interface available in kernel?

The physical access guards for reading/writing the involved critical
memory are identical as far as I know? Layered security is generally a
good thing, and the userspace pass actually adds a layer, so not sure
which is really safer?

In my case the rerouting was to done generalize it. Any type of trust
source, anywhere.


> > > Isn't actual purpose to have trusted keys is to protect user-space
> > > from access to kernel keys in plain format? Doesn't user mode helper
> > > defeat that purpose in one way or another?
> >
> > Not really. CPU is in the user mode while running the code, but the
> > code or the secure keydata being is not available to the 'normal'
> > userspace. It's like microkernel service/driver this way. The usermode
> > driver is part of the kernel image and it runs on top of a invisible
> > rootfs.
>
> Can you elaborate here with an example regarding how this user-mode
> helper will securely communicate with a hardware based trust source
> with other user-space processes denied access to that trust source?

The other user mode processes will never see the device node to open.
There is none in existence for them; it only exists in the ramfs based
root for the user mode helper.


--
Janne