Re: [PATCH] doc: trusted-encrypted: updates with TEE as a new trust source (update)

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:55:44AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 08:46, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 06:06:33PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > Hi Jarkko,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 13:44, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 11:42:49AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > > From: Elaine Palmer <erpalmer@us.ibm.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Update trusted key documentation with additional comparisons between
> > > > > discrete TPMs and TEE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Elaine Palmer <erpalmer@us.ibm.com>
> > > >
> > > > Right, so OP-TEE is not the same as TEE. I did not know this and the
> > > > patch set does not underline this.
> > > >
> > > > I re-checked the patches and none of them say explicitly that OP-TEE
> > > > is an application living inside TEE.
> > >
> > > This patch-set provides a trust source based on generic TEE interface
> > > where underlying TEE implementations like OP-TEE (drivers/tee/optee/),
> > > AMD TEE (drivers/tee/amdtee/) etc. can easily be hooked up. And this
> > > is similar to the TPM interface where underlying TPM implementations
> > > like discrete TPM, virtual TPM, firmware TPM etc. can be easily hooked
> > > up.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This essentially means that the backend needs to be renamed as "op_tee".
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't see any need for this, see above.
> >
> > Right, TEE is a protocol standard, just like TPM, and OP-TEE is one
> > implementation of this interface? I.e. OP-TEE does not define API
> > that is hard bound to OP-TEE?
> >
> 
> Yes, OP-TEE doesn't define a hard bound client interface API. The
> client API is based on TEE client API specification [1] from
> GlobalPlatform.
> 
> [1] http://globalplatform.org/specs-library/tee-client-api-specification/
> 
> -Sumit

Thanks, bookmarked. No need for name change.

/Jarkko