Re: [PATCH 0/4][RFC v2] Introduce the in-kernel hibernation encryption

Pavel Machek
2018-07-24T13:05:03Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1387 bytes --]

On Tue 2018-07-24 13:49:41, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Mo, 2018-07-23 at 14:22 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > > Yes. But you are objecting to encryption in kernel space at all,
> > > aren't you?
> >
> > I don't particulary love the idea of doing hibernation encryption in
> > the kernel, correct.
> >
> > But we have this weird thing called secure boot, some people seem to
> > want. So we may need some crypto in the kernel -- but I'd like
> > something that works with uswsusp, too. Plus, it is mandatory that
> > patch explains what security guarantees they want to provide against
> > what kinds of attacks...
>
> Hi,
>
> very well, maybe we should state clearly that the goal of these
> patch set is to make Secure Boot and STD coexist. Anything else
> is a nice side effect, but not the primary justification, right?
>
> And we further agree that the model of Secure Boot requires the
> encryption to be done in kernel space, don't we?
> Furthermore IMHO the key must also be generated in trusted code,
> hence in kernel space. Yu Chen, I really cannot see how
> a symmetrical encryption with a known key can be secure.

Nicely said. Yes, this is the message I was trying to get across.

Pavel

--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]