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=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 96AB7C43461 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:26:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B8E4206E6 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:26:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="pTHqR2Ri" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3B8E4206E6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=zEicEtgzJRPX87i4AwoCvwVTnZ9fz+GSh7f4V19YosI=; b=pTHqR2RiuS3Vx5wFuMgQs+X5X vdcXGvE+vUV8i6L3XEBIFNoCUBtLKQXLknnBoSxOIKqElGuRn6uXdit0wLXG1BW3f7hlc/3dzQSRe f5XXgQqA6Bnu1QSU0iA5EQcuFnTIbT0g36yYLkhjYHOuHesvSMkL9Vmfll2YCSE1mPHoKmokdMPw0 8WomjroMfA3Fp8kTlXfzOtcamD+BB6deADoIZk57oD6tufS0RJ6MZ3gTNb+hChYbazYUI6KwOxa3p oycc3DcrVcL9+QhSC8+vd2Td+boB0aM053pxDp6vwV7u7GvL98eFCbzRAkoBvuv8z/VNg2dYCXfc9 HUlDV594A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kIwiq-0002tI-7m; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:25:24 +0000 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kIwim-0002sj-Dz for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:25:22 +0000 IronPort-SDR: 8R5bmlUBQnds6rQI4+jEiKwzjUu6jkwKhfZjFrotq4U/KvdojJLRK9Z8L1ZhWcVWWaNZ4dV+kw lbJq3ioKtPhg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9747"; a="139236722" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,271,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="139236722" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Sep 2020 09:25:17 -0700 IronPort-SDR: PDAql5mIiHxBEiUG7vy+HU9oL6HWgsVWHNIh7FEw8CEQMferWTmRWED5XCtGpsb0o5BI7eIdwZ xfH048D/iB3A== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,271,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="452375009" Received: from sdompke-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.249.45.123]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Sep 2020 09:25:08 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:25:06 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Sumit Garg Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys framework Message-ID: <20200917162506.GC9750@linux.intel.com> References: <1600350398-4813-1-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org> <1600350398-4813-2-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org> <20200917162142.GB9750@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200917162142.GB9750@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200917_122520_624883_5292E066 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 21.79 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, daniel.thompson@linaro.org, op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, corbet@lwn.net, jejb@linux.ibm.com, janne.karhunen@gmail.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, zohar@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, lhinds@redhat.com, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Markus.Wamser@mixed-mode.de, casey@schaufler-ca.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jens.wiklander@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, serge@hallyn.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:21:49PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:16:35PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > Current trusted keys framework is tightly coupled to use TPM device as > > an underlying implementation which makes it difficult for implementations > > like Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) etc. to provide trusted keys > > support in case platform doesn't posses a TPM device. > > > > So this patch tries to add generic trusted keys framework where underlying > > implementations like TPM, TEE etc. could be easily plugged-in. > > I would rephrase this a bit: > > "Add a generic trusted keys framework where underlying implementations > can be easily plugged in. Create struct trusted_key_ops to achieve this, > which contains necessary functions of a backend." > > I remember asking about this approach that what if there was just a > header for trusted key functions and a compile time decision, which C > file to include instead of ops struct. I don't remember if these was a > conclusion on this or not. > > E.g. lets say you have a device with TEE and TPM, should you be able > to be use both at run-time? I might play along how this works now but > somehow, in the commit message preferably, it should be conclude why > one alternative is chosen over another. We must somehow seal this discussion because the other changes are based on this decision. I don't think tail of this patch set takes a long time spin. This is the main architectural decision. /Jarkko _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel