linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
	Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tpm: define a command filter
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:07:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170124190707.GA9899@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170124143600.siyhblj67qaatewi@intel.com>

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:36:00PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:19:18PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:02:52AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > This commit adds a command filter for whitelisting a set of commands in
> > > a TPM space. When a TPM space is created through /dev/tpms0, no
> > > commands are allowed. The user of the TPM space must explicitly define
> > > the list of commands allowed before sending any commands. This ioctl is
> > > a one shot call so that a resource manager daemon can call it before
> > > sending the file descriptor to the client.
> > 
> > I don't think it makes sense to have a daemon in user space that
> > passes an open'd /dev/tpms0 FD directly to a client..
> > 
> > It is trivial and more powerful to just proxy the messages. Can you
> > see some reason why passing a FD through a daemon would make sense?
> > 
> > The earlier discussion with James was to have some way to apply a
> > global command filter to all tpms0 users with the idea that the
> > 'right' restricted command set would enable a 0666 cdev node, and no
> > daemon.
> 
> Is that a conflicting goal?
>
> Maybe the ioctl could be restricted by CAP_MAC_ADMIN in that case?

I think you need to spell out a clear use case for how userspace
should use this filter feature and why having the kernel involved is a
necessary element.

Driving userspace from the kernel uAPI design is a bit tricky without
participation from people writing the user space code.

> How would you propose to change the code below? I guess the "core
> code" is about right and this is more about API, am I right?

Generally, I'm of the opinion it is better to introduce the minimal
amount of uAPI at this point and wait until people working on
userspace figure out basic questions like, will there be a TPM2 daemon
or not..

I would focus now on getting the RFC series finished up, hook the
kAPI users into spaces and get it to the point where it does let
user & kernel safely share the TPM.

Jason

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-24 19:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-24  0:02 [PATCH RFC] tpm: define a command filter Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-01-24  0:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-01-24 14:36   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-01-24 19:07     ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2017-01-25 20:21       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-01-25 22:11         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-01-26 11:14           ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-01-26 18:05             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-01-27  6:42               ` Jarkko Sakkinen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170124190707.GA9899@obsidianresearch.com \
    --to=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
    --cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
    --cc=tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=tpmdd@selhorst.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).