Re: [PATCH 02/11] libnvdimm/security: change clear text nvdimm keys to encrypted keys

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

[ add keyrings and lkml ]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 9:28 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 15:13 -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> > In order to make nvdimm more secure, encrypted keys will be used instead of
> > clear text keys. A master key will be created to seal encrypted nvdimm
> > keys. The master key can be a trusted key generated from TPM 2.0 or a less
> > secure user key.
>
> Trusted keys also work for TPM 1.2.  Are you intentionally limiting
> the master key to TPM 2.0?

TPM 1.2 is supported from a software perspective, however the
intersection of hardware platforms deploying security enabled NVDIMMs
and TPM 1.2 might be a null set.

> Traditionally there is a single master key for the system, which would
> be sealed to a set of boot time PCR values.  After decrypting all of
> the encrypted keys, the master key would be removed from the keyring
> and a PCR extended.  Extending a PCR would prevent the master key from
> being unsealed again and used to decrypt encrypted keys, without
> rebooting the system.  Normally this would be done before pivoting
> root.
>
> If you're not referring to the system master key and are intentionally
> limiting usage to TPM 2.0, more details on the master key security
> requirements should be included.

Oh, interesting point. I think we had been assuming a local +
unsealed-at-runtime nvdimm master key rather than a system-wide master
key. Yes, we need to rethink this in terms of supporting a sealed
system-key. This would seem to limit security actions, outside of
unlock, to always requiring a reboot. I.e. the nominal case is that we
boot up and unlock the DIMMs, but any subsequent security operation
like erase, or change-passphrase would require rebooting into an
environment where the system-master key is unsealed. I do think
re-provisioning keys and erasing DIMM contents are sufficiently
exceptional events that a reboot requirement is tolerable.

Is there already existing tooling around this to be able to schedule
master-key related actions to be deferred to an initrd environment?

> Using trusted keys that are encrypted/decrypted using a user key
> should really be limited to testing environments.

Makes sense.

> >
> > In the process of this conversion, the kernel cached key will be removed
> > in order to simplify the verification process. The hardware will be used to
> > verify the decrypted user payload directly.
>
> Making this sort of change implies there is no concern in breaking
> existing userspace.  Either the code hasn't yet been upstreamed or
> there are not any users. If the code hasn't been upstreamed, it would
> make more sense to squash the git history:
>
> - making code review easier
> - making the git history bisect safe

Yes, the old scheme is not upstream. I'll do the squash once we've
finalized the key-management details.

Thanks for the help Mimi.