[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0e69a0aa394dd20347b06ae4e700aa17d52583ef.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:54:34 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: support trusted keys
On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 10:16 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Neither of you actually answered my question, which is whether the support for
> trusted keys in dm-crypt is a mistake. I think you're saying that it is? That
> would imply that fscrypt shouldn't support trusted keys, but rather encrypted
> keys -- which conflicts with Ahmad's patch which is adding support for trusted
> keys. Note that your reasoning for this is not documented at all in the
> trusted-encrypted keys documentation; it needs to be (email threads don't really
> matter), otherwise how would anyone know when/how to use this feature?
True, but all of the trusted-encrypted key examples in the
documentation are "encrypted" type keys, encrypted/decrypted based on a
"trusted" type key. There are no examples of using the "trusted" key
type directly. Before claiming that adding "trusted" key support in
dm-crypt was a mistake, we should ask Ahmad why he felt dm-crypt needed
to directly support "trusted" type keys.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists