[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFA6WYODfsMTiCEyFA2aRGm+UQE0OTe-ui7mMSK-cqUR_YJFTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 19:22:54 +0530
From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
To: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
horia geanta <horia.geanta@....com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
aymen sghaier <aymen.sghaier@....com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
davem <davem@...emloft.net>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
kernel <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@...gutronix.de>,
Udit Agarwal <udit.agarwal@....com>,
Jan Luebbe <j.luebbe@...gutronix.de>,
david <david@...ma-star.at>,
Franck Lenormand <franck.lenormand@....com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list, ASYMMETRIC KEYS" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] KEYS: trusted: Introduce support for NXP
CAAM-based trusted keys
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 19:00, Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard, Sumit,
>
> On 01.04.21 15:17, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Sumit,
> >
> > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> >> Von: "Sumit Garg" <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
> >> IIUC, this would require support for multiple trusted keys backends at
> >> runtime but currently the trusted keys subsystem only supports a
> >> single backend which is selected via kernel module parameter during
> >> boot.
> >>
> >> So the trusted keys framework needs to evolve to support multiple
> >> trust sources at runtime but I would like to understand the use-cases
> >> first. IMO, selecting the best trust source available on a platform
> >> for trusted keys should be a one time operation, so why do we need to
> >> have other backends available at runtime as well?
> >
> > I thought about devices with a TPM-Chip and CAAM.
In this case why would one prefer to use CAAM when you have standards
compliant TPM-Chip which additionally offers sealing to specific PCR
(integrity measurement) values.
> > IMHO allowing only one backend at the same time is a little over simplified.
>
> It is, but I'd rather leave this until it's actually needed.
> What can be done now is adopting a format for the exported keys that would
> make this extension seamless in future.
>
+1
-Sumit
> Cheers,
> Ahmad
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | |
> Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
> 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists