From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
Cc: "David Gstir" <david@sigma-star.at>,
"Sumit Garg" <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
"Mimi Zohar" <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
"Horia Geantă" <horia.geanta@nxp.com>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"David Howells" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"James Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"kernel@pengutronix.de" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
"Aymen Sghaier" <aymen.sghaier@nxp.com>,
"Herbert Xu" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Udit Agarwal" <udit.agarwal@nxp.com>,
"Jan Luebbe" <j.luebbe@pengutronix.de>,
"Franck Lenormand" <franck.lenormand@nxp.com>,
"keyrings@vger.kernel.org" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] KEYS: trusted: Introduce support for NXP CAAM-based trusted keys
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 02:29:22 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YGUF0sArOSy2gdpS@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1171de9c-97b9-3936-707b-16ec34cf94d5@pengutronix.de>
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:11:24PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Hello Jarkko,
>
> On 28.03.21 22:37, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:41:24PM +0100, David Gstir wrote:
> >> Generally speaking, I’d say trusting the CAAM RNG and trusting in it’s
> >> other features are two separate things. However, reading through the CAAM
> >> key blob spec I’ve got here, CAAM key blob keys (the keys that secure a blob’s
> >> content) are generated using its internal RNG. So I’d save if the CAAM RNG
> >> is insecure, so are generated key blobs. Maybe somebody with more insight
> >> into the CAAM internals can verify that, but I don’t see any point in using
> >> the kernel’s RNG as long as we let CAAM generate the key blob keys for us.
> >
> > Here's my long'ish analysis. Please read it to the end if by ever means
> > possible, and apologies, I usually try to keep usually my comms short, but
> > this requires some more meat than the usual.
>
> Thanks for the write-up!
>
> > The Bad News
> > ============
> >
> > Now that we add multiple hardware trust sources for trusted keys, will
> > there ever be a scenario where a trusted key is originally sealed with a
> > backing hardware A, unsealed, and resealed with hardware B?
> >
> > The hardware and vendor neutral way to generate the key material would be
> > unconditionally always just the kernel RNG.
> >
> > CAAM is actually worse than TCG because it's not even a standards body, if
> > I got it right. Not a lot but at least a tiny fraction.
>
> CAAM is how NXP calls the crypto accelerator built into some of its SoCs.
>
> > This brings an open item in TEE patches: trusted_tee_get_random() is an
> > issue in generating kernel material. I would rather replace that with
> > kernel RNG *for now*, because the same open question applies also to ARM
> > TEE. It's also a single company controlled backing technology.
> >
> > By all practical means, I do trust ARM TEE in my personal life but this is
> > not important.
> >
> > CAAM *and* TEE backends break the golden rule of putting as little trust as
> > possible to anything, even not anything weird is clear at sight, as
> > security is essentially a game of known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The GOOD News
> > =============
> >
> > So there's actually option (C) that also fixes the TPM trustd keys issue:
> >
> > Add a new kernel patch, which:
> >
> > 1. Adds the use of kernel RNG as a boot option.
> > 2. If this boot option is not active, the subsystem will print a warning
> > to klog denoting this.
> > 3. Default is of course vendor RNG given the bad design issue in the TPM
> > trusted keys, but the warning in klog will help to address it at least
> > a bit.
>
> Why should the TPM backend's choice influence later backends? We could add
> a new option for key creation time, e.g.:
>
> keyctl add trusted kmk "new keylen rng=kernel" @s
>
> The default would be rng=vendor if available with a fallback to rng=kernel,
> which should always be available.
It matters a lot because it is existing ABI - for better or worse.
I think a new option is a bad idea, because it cannot easily enforced.
Kernel command-line on the other hand can be even signed.
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-31 23:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-16 17:01 [PATCH v1 0/3] KEYS: trusted: Introduce support for NXP CAAM-based trusted keys Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v1 1/3] crypto: caam - add in-kernel interface for blob generator Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-21 20:46 ` Horia Geantă
2021-03-23 16:41 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v1 2/3] KEYS: trusted: implement fallback to kernel RNG Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v1 3/3] KEYS: trusted: Introduce support for NXP CAAM-based trusted keys Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-16 19:22 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-03-17 13:58 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-16 23:14 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-03-17 7:39 ` Sumit Garg
2021-03-17 8:07 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-03-17 14:02 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-30 21:28 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-03-21 20:48 ` Horia Geantă
2021-03-23 16:35 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-23 18:07 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-03-24 9:26 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-24 10:47 ` Sumit Garg
2021-03-24 14:07 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-25 5:26 ` Sumit Garg
2021-03-27 12:41 ` David Gstir
2021-03-28 20:37 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-03-29 10:11 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-31 23:29 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2021-03-30 7:26 ` Sumit Garg
2021-03-31 23:30 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-04-01 7:41 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-30 21:47 ` Eric Biggers
2021-03-31 23:31 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-03-31 23:34 ` Eric Biggers
2021-04-01 1:11 ` Herbert Xu
2021-04-01 5:50 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-04-01 6:03 ` Eric Biggers
2021-04-01 5:46 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-03-24 16:14 ` James Bottomley
2021-03-24 20:49 ` Mimi Zohar
2021-03-24 21:58 ` James Bottomley
2021-04-02 1:49 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2021-03-31 18:35 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-04-01 10:15 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-04-01 10:23 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-03-16 23:10 ` [PATCH v1 0/3] " Richard Weinberger
2021-03-17 14:08 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-30 21:50 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-04-01 10:04 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-04-01 10:20 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-04-01 10:28 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-04-01 10:53 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-04-01 10:57 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-04-01 11:05 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-04-01 11:13 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-04-01 11:16 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-03-30 22:04 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-03-30 22:16 ` James Bottomley
2021-03-31 18:36 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-03-31 18:49 ` James Bottomley
2021-03-31 19:36 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-04-01 10:06 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-04-01 13:20 ` Sumit Garg
2021-04-01 18:26 ` James Bottomley
2021-04-01 12:55 ` Sumit Garg
2021-04-01 13:17 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-04-01 13:30 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-04-01 13:52 ` Sumit Garg
2021-04-01 13:59 ` Richard Weinberger
2021-04-01 14:12 ` Sumit Garg
2021-04-01 11:11 ` David Howells
2021-03-21 20:01 ` Horia Geantă
2021-03-23 16:34 ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-03-24 6:23 ` Sumit Garg
2021-03-23 16:37 ` Ahmad Fatoum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YGUF0sArOSy2gdpS@kernel.org \
--to=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=a.fatoum@pengutronix.de \
--cc=aymen.sghaier@nxp.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=david@sigma-star.at \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=franck.lenormand@nxp.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=horia.geanta@nxp.com \
--cc=j.luebbe@pengutronix.de \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=sumit.garg@linaro.org \
--cc=udit.agarwal@nxp.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).