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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 8F764C2BBD1 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5702072E for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728511AbgIQQZj (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:25:39 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:44028 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728180AbgIQQZ0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:25:26 -0400 IronPort-SDR: DsXWU7/+aVl4TAJEdhk5F6Fs+Phw9NrPRiCQWH7IGatsQU9yHxXH632tOg0o67dpRUIRpldq1g ppDil8as2W/A== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9747"; a="139236721" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,271,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="139236721" 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 Cc: zohar@linux.ibm.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, dhowells@redhat.com, jens.wiklander@linaro.org, corbet@lwn.net, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, janne.karhunen@gmail.com, daniel.thompson@linaro.org, Markus.Wamser@mixed-mode.de, lhinds@redhat.com, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org 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-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200917162142.GB9750@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: 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