[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YGVfDUHunGC44iuH@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:50:05 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@....com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Aymen Sghaier <aymen.sghaier@....com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Udit Agarwal <udit.agarwal@....com>,
Jan Luebbe <j.luebbe@...gutronix.de>,
Franck Lenormand <franck.lenormand@....com>,
"keyrings@...r.kernel.org" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] KEYS: trusted: Introduce support for NXP
CAAM-based trusted keys
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:11:32PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 04:34:29PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 02:31:46AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >
> > > It's a bummer but uapi is the god in the end. Since TPM does not do it
> > > today, that behaviour must be supported forever. That's why a boot option
> > > AND a warning would be the best compromise.
> >
> > It's not UAPI if there is no way for userspace to tell if it changed.
>
> Exactly. UAPI is only an issue if something *breaks*.
If there's even one user that comes shouting that he has a user space
configuration, where e.g. rng entropy is consumed constantly and the
code assumes that trusted keys does not add to that, then something
would break.
It would be a crap user space yes, but I don't want to go on reverting
because of that. I think there is small but still existing chance that
something could break.
Why not just add a boot parameter instead of making brutal enforcing
changes, indirectly visible to the user space?
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists