Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:38:40 +0800
From:   Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>,
        "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@suse.com>, Theodore Ts o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>,
        Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Gu, Kookoo" <kookoo.gu@intel.com>,
        "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4][RFC v2] Introduce the in-kernel hibernation
 encryption
Message-ID: <20180807073840.GA17894@chenyu-desktop>
References: <20180718202235.GA4132@amd>
 <20180718235851.GA22170@sandybridge-desktop>
 <20180719110149.GA4679@amd>
 <20180719132003.GA30981@sandybridge-desktop>
 <20180720102532.GA20284@amd>
 <1532346156.3057.11.camel@suse.com>
 <20180723162302.GA4503@sandybridge-desktop>
 <1532590246.7411.3.camel@suse.com>
 <20180806075754.GA12124@chenyu-desktop>
 <1533550820.15815.14.camel@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1533550820.15815.14.camel@suse.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 12:20:20PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Mo, 2018-08-06 at 15:57 +0800, Yu Chen wrote:
> > Hi Oliver,
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:30:46AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > On Di, 2018-07-24 at 00:23 +0800, Yu Chen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Good point, we once tried to generate key in kernel, but people
> > > > suggest to generate key in userspace and provide it to the
> > > > kernel, which is what ecryptfs do currently, so it seems this
> > > > should also be safe for encryption in kernel.
> > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg33145.html
> > > > Thus Chun-Yi's signature can use EFI key and both the key from
> > > > user space.
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > ecryptfs can trust user space. It is supposed to keep data
> > > safe while the system is inoperative.
> > 
> > Humm, I did not quite get the point here, let's take fscrypt
> 
> While the system is running and the fs is mounted, your data
> is as secure as root access to your machine, right? You encrypt
> a disk primarily so data cannot be recovered (and altered) while
> the system is not running.
>
> Secure Boot does not trust root fully. There is a cryptographic
> chain of trust and user space is not part of it.
>
Okay, I see. So if we want to use secure boot mechanism for
hibernation encryption, user space is trusted.
> > for example, the kernel gets user generated key from user space,
> > and uses per-inode nonce(random bytes) as the master key to
> > do a KDF(key derivation function) on user provided key, and uses
> > that key for encryption. We can also added similar mechanism
> > to generate the key in kernel space but the key should be
> > original from user's provided key(password derived), because
> > the security boot/signature mechanism could not cover the case
> > that, two different users could resume to each other's context
> > because there isn't any certification during resume if it is
> > on the same physical hardware.
> 
> Please explain. You will always have to suspend the whole machine
> with all tasks of all users. And STD with Secure Boot need not
> imply that you encrypt your discs. You need to encrypt only
> kernel memory to meet the requirements.
> 
> As STD affects the whole machine it must require root rights.
> So I cannot see how you can talk about a session belonging
> to a user. Please explain.
> 
The case is for physical access, not the 'user' in OS.
> It seems to me that you can in theory encrypt the password
> by a key coming from user space, so that you need to know
> an additional key to resume the system, but that seems to me
> above and beyond what Secure Boot requires.
> 
Understand.

Best,
Yu
> 	Regards
> 		Oliver
>