linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 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:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:25:06 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
Cc:     zohar@...ux.ibm.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        jens.wiklander@...aro.org, corbet@....net, jmorris@...ei.org,
        serge@...lyn.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com, janne.karhunen@...il.com,
        daniel.thompson@...aro.org, Markus.Wamser@...ed-mode.de,
        lhinds@...hat.com, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys framework

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:21:49PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:16:35PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > Current trusted keys framework is tightly coupled to use TPM device as
> > an underlying implementation which makes it difficult for implementations
> > like Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) etc. to provide trusted keys
> > support in case platform doesn't posses a TPM device.
> > 
> > So this patch tries to add generic trusted keys framework where underlying
> > implementations like TPM, TEE etc. could be easily plugged-in.
> 
> I would rephrase this a bit:
> 
> "Add a generic trusted keys framework where underlying implementations
> can be easily plugged in. Create struct trusted_key_ops to achieve this,
> which contains necessary functions of a backend."
> 
> I remember asking about this approach that what if there was just a
> header for trusted key functions and a compile time decision, which C
> file to include instead of ops struct. I don't remember if these was a
> conclusion on this or not.
> 
> E.g. lets say you have a device with TEE and TPM, should you be able
> to be use both at run-time? I might play along how this works now but
> somehow, in the commit message preferably, it should be conclude why
> one alternative is chosen over another.

We must somehow seal this discussion because the other changes are
based on this decision.

I don't think tail of this patch set takes a long time spin. This
is the main architectural decision.

/Jarkko