Message-ID: <02d035ca-697d-1634-a434-a43b9c01f4a9@marcan.st>
Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 05:29:23 +0900
From:   Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...aro.org>,
        "open list:ASYMMETRIC KEYS" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Joakim Bech <joakim.bech@...aro.org>,
        Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov@...aro.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Ruchika Gupta <ruchika.gupta@...aro.org>,
        "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>, yang.huang@...el.com,
        bing.zhu@...el.com, Matti.Moell@...nsynergy.com,
        hmo@...nsynergy.com, linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvme@...r.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB)
 subsystem

On 11/03/2021 23.31, Linus Walleij wrote:
> I understand your argument, is your position such that the nature
> of the hardware is such that community should leave this hardware
> alone and not try to make use of RPMB  for say ordinary (self-installed)
> Linux distributions?

It's not really that the community should leave this hardware alone, so 
much that I think there is a very small subset of users who will be able 
to benefit from it, and that subset will be happy with a usable 
kernel/userspace interface and some userspace tooling for this purpose, 
including provisioning and such.

Consider the prerequisites for using RPMB usefully here:

* You need (user-controlled) secureboot
* You need secret key storage - so either some kind of CPU-fused key, or 
one protected by a TPM paired with the secureboot (key sealed to PCR 
values and such)
* But if you have a TPM, that can handle secure counters for you already 
AIUI, so you don't need RPMB
* So this means you must be running a non-TPM secureboot system

And so we're back to embedded platforms like Android phones and other 
SoC stuff... user-controlled secureboot is already somewhat rare here, 
and even rarer are the cases where the user controls the whole chain 
including the TEE if any (otherwise it'll be using RPMB already); this 
pretty much excludes all production Android phones except for a few 
designed as completely open systems; we're left with those and a subset 
of dev boards (e.g. the Jetson TX1 I did fuse experiments on). In the 
end, those systems will probably end up with fairly bespoke set-ups for 
any given device or SoC family, for using RPMB.

But then again, if you have a full secureboot system where you control 
the TEE level, wouldn't you want to put the RPMB shenanigans there and 
get some semblance of secure TPM/keystore/attempt throttling 
functionality that is robust against Linux exploits and has a smaller 
attack surface? Systems without EL3 are rare (Apple M1 :-)) so it makes 
more sense to do this on those that do have it. If you're paranoid 
enough to be getting into building your own secure system with 
anti-rollback for retry counters, you should be heading in that directly 
anyway.

And now Linux's RPMB code is useless because you're running the stack in 
the secure monitor instead :-)

-- 
Hector Martin (marcan@...can.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub

Powered by blists - more mailing lists