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=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no 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 C4A9EC43603 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 20:57:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7346F205C9 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 20:57:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="BqK4sU0Y"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="BqK4sU0Y" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726532AbfLIU5J (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:57:09 -0500 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:34370 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726483AbfLIU5J (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:57:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D098EE112; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:57:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1575925028; bh=EniOcEMFZZZS0LCHITKvY44oObdcidMrDvbzkr++vyo=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BqK4sU0YRloZcN9cSC5FH8phBPQADv5hSZOxr85qJ1/OsIDwz0UnV74yfjF4yXHTJ VOcb7wvuSCDCNHCL/8t3KutqcPzNV1ZaVGSox5SKJsPyS+m3ZspCOpL6tZQyn49P2U NzvtIRtfNWCJQVyHkh4j8Ju7jB5XqRreUlnzfurE= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8WkMDGQV39O9; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:57:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from jarvis.lan (unknown [50.35.76.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01A748EE0FC; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:57:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1575925028; bh=EniOcEMFZZZS0LCHITKvY44oObdcidMrDvbzkr++vyo=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BqK4sU0YRloZcN9cSC5FH8phBPQADv5hSZOxr85qJ1/OsIDwz0UnV74yfjF4yXHTJ VOcb7wvuSCDCNHCL/8t3KutqcPzNV1ZaVGSox5SKJsPyS+m3ZspCOpL6tZQyn49P2U NzvtIRtfNWCJQVyHkh4j8Ju7jB5XqRreUlnzfurE= Message-ID: <1575925024.31378.28.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Fix TPM 2.0 trusted keys From: James Bottomley To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 12:57:04 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20191209202024.GJ19243@linux.intel.com> References: <1575781600.14069.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20191209202024.GJ19243@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2019-12-09 at 22:20 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 09:06:40PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > The big problem with this patch is still that we can't yet combine > > policy with authorization because that requires proper session > > handling, but at least with this rewrite it becomes possible > > (whereas it was never possible with the old external policy session > > code). Thus, when we have the TPM 2.0 security patch upstream, > > we'll be able to use the session logic from that patch to imlement > > authorizations. > > This essentially means that this is an RFC, not something that can be > merged at this point before whatever you mean by proper has been > landed. No it doesn't. It just means we have a limitation in the keys that needs to be removed at a later time when we have the authentication mechanisms. Since there will simply be a feature added with no backward compat problems, it's not a merge blocker. James