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=-2.1 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 6556AC433DF for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:09:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F90C2074B for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:09:52 +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="xNx4AC8y"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="SsuhanMx" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726551AbgFEPJv (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:09:51 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:51864 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726541AbgFEPJv (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:09:51 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC3E8EE17B; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:09:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1591369791; bh=xi+z9qbPsTXllDBJ0WRM+/ndDAx9h8hfcyrkP6jQy6k=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=xNx4AC8ymt/OkeY3mRqTMEHnQndf/aBnclJfvQNWy7aveFecdWQ35qnK2BTj4tDk0 G5zdkjg43mGiEaXACZbAdakKs5NyH9xBtLjgsw/hg81O93gLpIZNt1dPV0gMzUFC9W IxODd5GkCMt/vL9axFQoRSBPnCpWynjjUcD+9cX8= 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 PJEsl4LlIseN; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:09:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [153.66.254.194] (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 5F2588EE0CE; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:09:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1591369790; bh=xi+z9qbPsTXllDBJ0WRM+/ndDAx9h8hfcyrkP6jQy6k=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=SsuhanMxRd81tv09iysh1skSDTAVmdiFppZeBt8zMyAWejq3boqFwAwf+ovwt1fgJ wa8tlBOS2d3l8EhzY38Jhg077ePKPcMFGVvFPPcOQh1lXzB2ndfEuA7LwY5ZihCg1x nWR/l0VjoxYr+ZUGaNinORmtYn4VXP11y6PiLoN4= Message-ID: <1591369788.4728.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: TPM resource manager separation From: James Bottomley To: Ken Goldman , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 08:09:48 -0700 In-Reply-To: <6693966c-132e-c35a-af08-7513cab33fc3@linux.ibm.com> References: <6693966c-132e-c35a-af08-7513cab33fc3@linux.ibm.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 Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:45 -0400, Ken Goldman wrote: > Low level question: > > Does the RM keep track of which handle / object belongs to which > process? Sort of: it stores the mappings in a per open file private area. One process can have more than one file open to the resource manager, meaning it could have multiple views of the resource managed TPM, but by and large there's one open per process meaning you can regard it as mapping per process. > E.g., process A loads a key and gets handle 80ffffff. Process B > then tries to do an operation using handle 80ffffff. Will the RM > reject it? No, in fact the way the current resource manager works, the first volatile key loaded by any process using the RM will always appear at 80ffffff. > High level question: > > Does the RM have any design or capability documentation? Is there a > place to get answers other than this mailing list. Not really ... perhaps it is time to write a Documentation/security/tpmrm guide. James