linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys framework

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:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:14:07 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, dhowells@...hat.com,
        Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@...il.com>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Markus Wamser <Markus.Wamser@...ed-mode.de>,
        "open list:ASYMMETRIC KEYS" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.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>,
        op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org,
        "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" <tee-dev@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys framework

On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 02:41:55PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > This, I think is wrong. You should have a compile time flag for TPM e.g.
> > CONFIG_TRUSTED_TPM, not this dynamic mess.
> >
> 
> The whole idea to have it dynamic was to have a common trusted keys
> module which could support both TPM and TEE implementation depending
> on hardware. I guess it may be useful in scenarios where a particular
> hardware supports a TPM chip while other doesn't but both need to run
> a common kernel image.

For now it should only scale to what is needed. No problems refining
it later when there is something to enable.

/Jarkko