linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT v4 0/5] Add generic trusted keys framework/subsystem

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: <CAFA6WYMCjKCf=aCVEXrQtZJ57V+2MCLNZKov6t37unzgpLmc0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:16:46 +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,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" 
        <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
        peterhuewe@....de, jgg@...pe.ca, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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 Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" <tee-dev@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT v4 0/5] Add generic trusted keys framework/subsystem

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 22:24, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 01:22:59PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > This patch-set is an outcome of discussion here [1]. It has evolved very
> > much since v1 to create, consolidate and generalize trusted keys
> > subsystem.
> >
> > This framework has been tested with trusted keys support provided via TEE
> > but I wasn't able to test it with a TPM device as I don't possess one. It
> > would be really helpful if others could test this patch-set using a TPM
> > device.
>
> I think 1/5-4/5 make up a non-RFC patch set that needs to reviewed,
> tested and merged as a separate entity.
>

Okay.

> On the other hand 5/5 cannot be merged even if I fully agreed on
> the code change as without TEE patch it does not add any value for
> Linux.
>

I agree here that 5/5 should go along with TEE patch-set. But if you
look at initial v1 patch-set, the idea was to get feedback on trusted
keys abstraction as a standalone patch along with testing using a TPM
(1.x or 2.0).

Since Mimi has tested this patch-set with TPM (1.x & 2.0), I am happy
to merge 5/5 with TEE patch-set. But it would be nice if I could get
feedback on 5/5 before I send next version of TEE patch-set.

> To straighten up thing I would suggest that the next patch set
> version would only consists of the first four patches and we meld
> them to the shape so that we can land them to the mainline. Then
> it should be way more easier to concentrate the actual problem you
> are trying to resolve.
>

Okay will send next patch-set version with first four patches only.

-Sumit

> /Jarkko