From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
peterhuewe@gmx.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
David Safford <safford@us.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] tpm: seal/unseal for TPM 2.0
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:49:15 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151013194915.GB3669@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151013173442.GB22160@obsidianresearch.com>
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:34:42AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:38:17AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Added tpm_trusted_seal() and tpm_trusted_unseal() API for sealing
> > trusted keys.
> >
> > This patch implements basic sealing and unsealing functionality for
> > TPM 2.0:
>
> We really need to stop using chip id's as a handle - the caller should
> be using a pointer, it is just a horrible API, and the TPM_ANY_NUM
> business is awful too.. TPM's are stateful devices!
Eventually this needs to be refactored out. I don't see it in the scope
of these patches or as high priority ATM.
> Is it feasible to introduce new APIs with a saner scheme?
>
> The api layering also seems really weird to me. At a minimum the
> tpm_seal_trusted should be called within key_seal, but really, should
> key_seal be migrated into the TPM core? I'm not sure it makes alot of
> sense to have a tpm_seal_trusted which uses the high level key structs
> when other tpm functions are all low level RPC wrappers...
I think tpm_seal() inside trusted.c is not a very good API. It takes the
ad hoc version of the structs given to key_seal from stack. I don't see
a problem here.
My viewpoint has been that key_seal/unseal in trusted.c should be
refactored out and TPM1 implementations seal/unseal should be moved to
the TPM subsystem. There's so little amount of in-kernel low-level TPM
code that IMHO it makes sense to keep in one place (as are all the other
TPM utility functions).
I can work on the TPM1 migration when we have the basic TPM2 stuff in
place.
> Jason
/Jakrkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-13 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-02 8:38 [PATCH 0/4] Basic trusted keys support for TPM 2.0 Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-02 8:38 ` [PATCH 1/4] tpm: introduce struct tpm_buf Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-02 8:38 ` [PATCH 2/4] trusted: move struct trusted_key_options to trusted-type.h Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-02 8:38 ` [PATCH 3/4] tpm: seal/unseal for TPM 2.0 Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-13 17:34 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2015-10-13 19:49 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2015-10-02 8:38 ` [PATCH 4/4] keys, trusted: seal/unseal with TPM 2.0 chips Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-03 10:00 ` [tpmdd-devel] " Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-03 10:26 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-03 10:35 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-04 18:57 ` Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-05 8:37 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-05 9:00 ` Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-05 11:56 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-05 12:20 ` Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-05 13:17 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-05 13:36 ` Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-05 13:57 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-05 14:13 ` Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-05 14:28 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-05 15:20 ` Arthur, Will C
2015-10-06 6:22 ` Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-06 12:26 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-06 13:16 ` Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-06 15:05 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-07 10:04 ` Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-07 10:25 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-10-07 10:32 ` Fuchs, Andreas
2015-10-07 11:15 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-07-03 15:36 [PATCH 0/4] Basic trusted keys support for TPM 2.0 Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-07-03 15:36 ` [PATCH 3/4] tpm: seal/unseal " Jarkko Sakkinen
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=20151013194915.GB3669@intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=safford@us.ibm.com \
--cc=tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=tpmdd@selhorst.net \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.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).