[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1570471695.5046.186.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 14:08:15 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
David Safford <david.safford@...com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"open list:ASYMMETRIC KEYS" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:CRYPTO API" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KEYS: asym_tpm: Switch to get_random_bytes()
On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 02:52 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> With TEE coming in, TPM is not the only hardware measure anymore sealing
> the keys and we don't want a mess where every hardware asset does their
> own proprietary key generation. The proprietary technology should only
> take care of the sealing part.
I'm fine with the concept of "trusted" keys being extended beyond just
TPM. But just as the VFS layer defines a set of callbacks and generic
functions, which can be used in lieu of file system specific callback
functions, a similar approach could be used here.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists