From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B4CC31E4B for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 05:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE822133D for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 05:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="W7/HmZtA" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726105AbfFNFhh (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 01:37:37 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f178.google.com ([209.85.208.178]:46364 "EHLO mail-lj1-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725940AbfFNFhh (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 01:37:37 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f178.google.com with SMTP id v24so1016114ljg.13 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:37:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nZNUHhspX/f3YOWEVEHKyyk596NYJqshHjg/vatkpxY=; b=W7/HmZtA2ueqgaDGdxDhZWvZWth1HioqPHWq3uv/ZfYeNDFiTuyQdPlIcFpcuu0z3o y6Uev4UXOG5e2S2Wthj/b5CuG5uoZNUQ41OGakG4dyH/tXfB2UroHg2Gx7hFqiJFMRhd gHQl567nnlSJFX9DFyvlw8RNWSWPh3lL/QzcclAHfQaZ7Hmb/dnSS3ruthZE4pMa5tAj qNEHjhma02SIf4fFrc/C/8hZTObaS9YJgPfGfLn6NshA2iWpqtI9/UJDjLUUosWLA3m2 v6GAqT6YsvDPsMhcK6xY6KxkpITZc7duRiPE1DrBM6fXGlQ03o6X5Ga4vX7NpAEQzxLA ALsg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nZNUHhspX/f3YOWEVEHKyyk596NYJqshHjg/vatkpxY=; b=oGnMJ1LEwokmP6bKOBI6MJa68fV/8IbbjV0EYrTlHbkGXZ/BsdHIL660E+9wrfC1sb PePz6PclG2U9Tj4TJqgZ931n1EEr3ZOlKTyjsteBhI4aLelIT5nUjRzQtNiGP3qGLVU3 YVTIUa6W2Y81Z4zL+XVHih3XrQjTlj+ybOLwUyQXGj4gBjXLddS6j/WP1+3t9WUtkpAN DKjxAL4YPlIq4+dPDJb2Evc1f7MLRsuHF48EYhtmHZmEWJheuPy8tum80s4O0C1JWh5j lp8Va17JI3LZ42y4lEhNsr6KQgy06X2qA8P47IXrVlStDPhiA3qy1bYmdaT3yYSA4g7K RlhA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXLuXOm/2a2r4KtRibeHXw9CLWfXygsZ9+8Aa5I3tMnZhx+kStZ RzpdIw0b729j6aupniTDWzD4TcKRZ3xm8PCufc4Ccg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyD8F4fw7/Bk2YoYfYuM4/Zn6eIcYSxGX5Muv3tuAEyNC1m3Hoxr0nrzGDdzQZYfXEpLZ8Y+RHbpI0YCi+CBR8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:63d9:: with SMTP id s86mr37708080lje.92.1560490655038; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:37:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1560421833-27414-1-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org> <1560421833-27414-7-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org> <20190613153414.GG18488@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20190613153414.GG18488@linux.intel.com> From: Sumit Garg Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:07:23 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 6/7] doc: keys: Document usage of TEE based Trusted Keys To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Jens Wiklander , corbet@lwn.net, dhowells@redhat.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, zohar@linux.ibm.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, Ard Biesheuvel , Daniel Thompson , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , tee-dev@lists.linaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 21:04, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 04:00:32PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > Provide documentation for usage of TEE based Trusted Keys via existing > > user-space "keyctl" utility. Also, document various use-cases. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg > > Sorry missed this patch. Anyway, I don't think we want multiple trusted > keys subsystems. You have to fix the existing one if you care to get > these changes in. There is no really other way around this. > I understand your point. When I initially looked at trusted key implementation, it seemed to be tightly coupled to use TPM device. So I implemented a parallel implementation to get initial feedback (functionality-wise) on this new approach. I will work on abstraction of trusted key apis to use either approach. But is it fine with you if I send if I send a separate RFC patch for abstraction and later once reviewed I will incorporate that patch in this patch-set. It will be really helpful if you could help to test that abstraction patch with a real TPM device as I doesn't posses one to test. -Sumit > /Jarkko