[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1597767558.3898.14.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:19:18 -0700
From: James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] docs: update trusted-encrypted.rst
On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:44 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 10:12:13AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 00:57 +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> > > On 2020/8/17 00:36, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2020-08-16 at 12:06 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > A note in this file states this:
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: When using a TPM 2.0 with a persistent key with handle
> > > > > 0x81000001, append 'keyhandle=0x81000001' to statements
> > > > > between quotes, such as "new 32 keyhandle=0x81000001".
> > > > >
> > > > > Now if someone was (still) interested in TPM 1.2
> > > > > adapt the note to state that these keyhandle=... should be
> > > > > removed for the TPM 1.2 case.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I also have a plan to match what userspace does and
> > > > simply assume a keyhandle of 40000001 (generate an EC Storage
> > > > Primary Key on the fly) if it's not specified, which will make
> > > > the TPM1.2 and 2.0 versions of this the same. Unfortunately
> > > > the necessary precursor patches are taking an age to get
> > > > upstream.
> > >
> > > Hi James,
> > >
> > > Do you have a plan to push such patches into upstream soon? If
> > > yes than I may wait for your patch and withdraw this one.
> >
> > Well, as I said above it depends on not yet upstream precursor
> > patches. They have been pending for about a year, so I've no real
> > idea of the timeline.
> >
> > James
>
> As far as I remember there was not much left in the previous version
> to do. Some time has passed when it was discussed but I recall it was
> mainly about documenting the key format.
Actually, no, unfortunately it's not in that update. Generating an on-
the-fly primary would involve the cryptographic security patch (same
mechanism as used to generate the null primary). I was thinking I'd
extract just that piece and use it in a follow on. So both the rework
of the key format and this extra patch that's not yet even broken out
of the TPM security series are required precursors.
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists