From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 21:01:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] docs: update trusted-encrypted.rst Message-Id: <20200819210133.GA9942@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: References: <20200815075143.47082-1-colyli@suse.de> <1597595769.8344.7.camel@linux.ibm.com> <1597597933.8344.13.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20200818154444.GA137138@linux.intel.com> <1597767558.3898.14.camel@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1597767558.3898.14.camel@linux.ibm.com> To: James Bottomley Cc: Coly Li , Stefan Berger , keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dan Williams , Mimi Zohar On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:19:18AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:44 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 10:12:13AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 00:57 +0800, Coly Li wrote: > > > > On 2020/8/17 00:36, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2020-08-16 at 12:06 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > A note in this file states this: > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: When using a TPM 2.0 with a persistent key with handle > > > > > > 0x81000001, append 'keyhandle=0x81000001' to statements > > > > > > between quotes, such as "new 32 keyhandle=0x81000001". > > > > > > > > > > > > Now if someone was (still) interested in TPM 1.2 > > > > > > adapt the note to state that these keyhandle=... should be > > > > > > removed for the TPM 1.2 case. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I also have a plan to match what userspace does and > > > > > simply assume a keyhandle of 40000001 (generate an EC Storage > > > > > Primary Key on the fly) if it's not specified, which will make > > > > > the TPM1.2 and 2.0 versions of this the same. Unfortunately > > > > > the necessary precursor patches are taking an age to get > > > > > upstream. > > > > > > > > Hi James, > > > > > > > > Do you have a plan to push such patches into upstream soon? If > > > > yes than I may wait for your patch and withdraw this one. > > > > > > Well, as I said above it depends on not yet upstream precursor > > > patches. They have been pending for about a year, so I've no real > > > idea of the timeline. > > > > > > James > > > > As far as I remember there was not much left in the previous version > > to do. Some time has passed when it was discussed but I recall it was > > mainly about documenting the key format. > > Actually, no, unfortunately it's not in that update. Generating an on- > the-fly primary would involve the cryptographic security patch (same > mechanism as used to generate the null primary). I was thinking I'd > extract just that piece and use it in a follow on. So both the rework > of the key format and this extra patch that's not yet even broken out > of the TPM security series are required precursors. > > James OK, sorry I mixed up thinks. Thanks. /Jarkko