Message-ID: <20240621160144.GB2081@sol.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:01:44 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Gaurav Kashyap <gaurkash@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: "dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org" <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
	"Gaurav Kashyap (QUIC)" <quic_gaurkash@...cinc.com>,
	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"andersson@...nel.org" <andersson@...nel.org>,
	"neil.armstrong@...aro.org" <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
	"srinivas.kandagatla" <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
	"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	"conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel <kernel@...cinc.com>,
	"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Om Prakash Singh (QUIC)" <quic_omprsing@...cinc.com>,
	"Bao D. Nguyen (QUIC)" <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>,
	"bartosz.golaszewski" <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
	"konrad.dybcio@...aro.org" <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
	"ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	"jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
	"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	"mani@...nel.org" <mani@...nel.org>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...cinc.com>,
	Sonal Gupta <sonalg@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/15] soc: qcom: ice: add hwkm support in ice

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 03:35:40PM +0000, Gaurav Kashyap wrote:
> Hello Eric
> 
> On 06/20/2024, 9:48 PM PDT, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:57:40PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it possible to use both kind of keys when working on standard
> > mode?
> > > > > > > If not, it should be the user who selects what type of keys to be
> > used.
> > > > > > > Enforcing this via DT is not a way to go.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, that support is not there yet. When you say user,
> > > > > > do you mean to have it as a filesystem mount option?
> > > > >
> > > > > During cryptsetup time. When running e.g. cryptsetup I, as a user,
> > > > > would like to be able to use either a hardware-wrapped key or a
> > standard key.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What we are looking for with these patches is for per-file/folder
> > encryption using fscrypt policies.
> > > > Cryptsetup to my understanding supports only full-disk , and does
> > > > not support FBE (File-Based)
> > >
> > > I must admit, I mostly used dm-crypt beforehand, so I had to look at
> > > fscrypt now. Some of my previous comments might not be fully
> > > applicable.
> > >
> > > > Hence the idea here is that we mount an unencrypted device (with the
> > > > inlinecrypt option that indicates inline encryption is supported) And
> > specify policies (links to keys) for different folders.
> > > >
> > > > > > The way the UFS/EMMC crypto layer is designed currently is that,
> > > > > > this information is needed when the modules are loaded.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231104211259.17448-2-ebiggers@kern
> > > > > > el.org /#Z31drivers:ufs:core:ufshcd-crypto.c
> > > > >
> > > > > I see that the driver lists capabilities here. E.g. that it
> > > > > supports HW-wrapped keys. But the line doesn't specify that standard
> > keys are not supported.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Those are capabilities that are read from the storage controller.
> > > > However, wrapped keys Are not a standard in the ICE JEDEC
> > > > specification, and in most cases, is a value add coming from the SoC.
> > > >
> > > > QCOM SOC and firmware currently does not support both kinds of keys in
> > the HWKM mode.
> > > > That is something we are internally working on, but not available yet.
> > >
> > > I'd say this is a significant obstacle, at least from my point of
> > > view. I understand that the default might be to use hw-wrapped keys,
> > > but it should be possible for the user to select non-HW keys if the
> > > ability to recover the data is considered to be important. Note, I'm
> > > really pointing to the user here, not to the system integrator. So
> > > using DT property or specifying kernel arguments to switch between
> > > these modes is not really an option.
> > >
> > > But I'd really love to hear some feedback from linux-security and/or
> > > linux-fscrypt here.
> > >
> > > In my humble opinion the user should be able to specify that the key
> > > is wrapped using the hardware KMK. Then if the hardware has already
> > > started using the other kind of keys, it should be able to respond
> > > with -EINVAL / whatever else. Then the user can evict previously
> > > programmed key and program a desired one.
> > >
> > > > > Also, I'd have expected that hw-wrapped keys are handled using
> > > > > trusted keys mechanism (see security/keys/trusted-keys/). Could
> > > > > you please point out why that's not the case?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I will evaluate this.
> > > > But my initial response is that we currently cannot communicate to
> > > > our TPM directly from HLOS, but goes through QTEE, and I don't think
> > > > our qtee currently interfaces with the open source tee driver. The
> > interface is through QCOM SCM driver.
> > >
> > > Note, this is just an API interface, see how it is implemented for the
> > > CAAM hardware.
> > >
> > 
> > The problem is that this patchset was sent out without the patches that add
> > the block and filesystem-level framework for hardware-wrapped inline
> > encryption keys, which it depends on.  So it's lacking context.  The proposed
> > framework can be found at https://lore.kernel.org/linux-
> > block/20231104211259.17448-1-ebiggers@...nel.org/T/#u
> > 
> 
> I have only been adding the fscryp patch link as part of the cover letter - as a dependency.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240617005825.1443206-1-quic_gaurkash@quicinc.com/
> If you would like me to include it in the patch series itself, I can do that as well.
> 

I think including all prerequisite patches would be helpful for reviewers.

Thanks for continuing to work on this!

I still need to get ahold of a sm8650 based device and test this out.  Is the
SM8650 HDK the only option, or is there a sm8650 based phone with upstream
support yet?

- Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists