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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 A20E8C4363F for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:17:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF1B611ED for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:17:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236010AbhDASR0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:17:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35822 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238588AbhDASJj (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:09:39 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CF54C005715 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id d13so3068708lfg.7 for ; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 07:13:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4LRc5zlX4dmIqJZC4tRXENYZk181mewXwD7X4GEXkKA=; b=Vm+Tjv8EGF4ON3BmePiF+an1PklXoMoLGfZKYRESqwWronVx6WRRZIS+F6TP+Lbfr9 c2fhhAhZk/8su55Y2QryQk7HxxWzqTdDivxWH4tQoshMJgWi+bZJvhsQdFOJrHT3LogF ReLuPuqCYkvLIBoIvAIP0KsgTTMVWftEFB2m1jz11/crEDOHsPcdzNSm0vmeT8TittD3 wxip5yY2IJe+jJ1e9DNffMb2CBHe+fM+0pjqre0pvnviuVjWpxDowfLaDS073O8T2T1r S/Tk43FTwPTMksk0XsjA7dB2lZp93arrwSecLvBVeuX60gZ9hxIPny6zhtsP+UkF+xgk B/DA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4LRc5zlX4dmIqJZC4tRXENYZk181mewXwD7X4GEXkKA=; b=rQis7G1tnSNbXuTgx/c/U4ZU1IB/RyW8vLrmqVBrfx1aaRFEcmRVNaxHJ8ohhcjtNa /3ErUprCQ0YJZeBXEBtx9q/UAx0i2P/kZUb4a0S/+C56J+zVyiJmwfA4slDRCw/E4Pp2 7ha9IarKHFrCXc7R8S7O19/XMa0UFyTJppx9GWerfbHHVMG21zVnDTxJGtnPOMu+mBPR 6WcbE6an56XuE/+Ypeho7/NLx6zXZZv1XBLaWWKEb+eQqrZp4xPux923335O6RiRStSJ Ml/kpSJrNjZH1w40uPFwBkS12/O/Zz+sRtQulcmutb/VBLT9qa5Jz73bKB4hL8Vig7xE uorw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533FUkr6ZyGsU1bife0G2VHEq/4JSIpQwMbbWiccyOJeBV/CAl6w Mfz2ElHDw3PnbJEFDAmMdCVEWLIviMpmg6E8T0LrzA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNTkFv6LNWIK5vqvAiZQLpPg75ghn4iKbcqKm1L+mPpFDnlADouEnrSfxrIbDhgL/PNaz27oq5y6nNZioEwVg= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5970:: with SMTP id h16mr5350347lfp.108.1617286380737; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 07:13:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1666035815.140054.1617283065549.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <1846277009.140163.1617285566823.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <1846277009.140163.1617285566823.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> From: Sumit Garg Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 19:42:49 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] KEYS: trusted: Introduce support for NXP CAAM-based trusted keys To: Richard Weinberger Cc: Ahmad Fatoum , Jarkko Sakkinen , horia geanta , Mimi Zohar , aymen sghaier , Herbert Xu , davem , James Bottomley , kernel , David Howells , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Steffen Trumtrar , Udit Agarwal , Jan Luebbe , david , Franck Lenormand , linux-integrity , "open list, ASYMMETRIC KEYS" , Linux Crypto Mailing List , linux-kernel , LSM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 19:29, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Sumit, > > ----- Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mail ----- > > Von: "Sumit Garg" > > In this case why would one prefer to use CAAM when you have standards > > compliant TPM-Chip which additionally offers sealing to specific PCR > > (integrity measurement) values. > > I don't think we can dictate what good/sane solutions are and which are n= ot. > Both CAAM and TPM have pros and cons, I don't see why supporting both is = a bad idea. I didn't mean to say that supporting both is a bad idea but rather I was looking for use-cases where one time selection of the best trust source (whether it be a TPM or TEE or CAAM etc.) for a platform wouldn't suffice for user needs. > > >> > IMHO allowing only one backend at the same time is a little over sim= plified. > >> > >> It is, but I'd rather leave this until it's actually needed. > >> What can be done now is adopting a format for the exported keys that w= ould > >> make this extension seamless in future. > >> > > > > +1 > > As long we don't make multiple backends at runtime impossible I'm > fine and will happily add support for it when needed. :-) > You are most welcome to add such support. I will be happy to review it. -Sumit > Thanks, > //richard