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;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] KEYS: Support TPM-wrapped key and crypto ops
From:   Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
In-Reply-To: <219367882d33fda9705485aa4a40b2ef55f3992f.camel@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 28 Sep 2018 19:20:54 +0200
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Message-Id: <209ABD17-A499-468D-B8F5-427F3F37028D@holtmann.org>
References: <c33c759d-9243-8885-7c5f-667681b759c2@gmail.com>
 <14f91823-474e-1b46-d305-12229dac8967@gmail.com>
 <0d51fca9a29458a40121df0c5380af91e3429c08.camel@infradead.org>
 <fdee179b-cfdf-7a2b-3193-e114f0084ecb@gmail.com>
 <153618445730.7946.10001472635835806478.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <1537253993.20009.62.camel@infradead.org>
 <14067.1537285833@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <745318a0-51bd-be8f-2251-44701ad75830@gmail.com>
 <19247.1537288419@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <23698.1537289705@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20622.1537291117@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <58F37819-78E2-45C8-8F04-4F21DDFB640E@holtmann.org>
 <219367882d33fda9705485aa4a40b2ef55f3992f.camel@infradead.org>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        James Bottemley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi David,

>>>>> Yes.  It shouldn't be much code, either.  You still have to check for X.509
>>>>> DER since the kernel currently supports that.
>>>> 
>>>> For reasons of backward compatibility, correct?  The kernel also has
>>>> mscode.asn1 which we would need to support as well.  Since we can't break
>>>> compatibility then perhaps this doesn't buy us a whole lot in the end.
>>> 
>>> Don't worry about mscode - that's not an asymmetric key parser.  That's only
>>> ever used directly from verify_pefile_signature().
>>> 
>>> Currently, we have to retain support for DER-encoded X.509.
>>> 
>>> But there's no reason we can't have a PEM parser that decodes the PEM and
>>> selects X.509, PKCS#8 or TPM based on the ascii header in that.  PKCS#8 and
>>> TPM don't need to take DER directly.
>> 
>> since we have to support DER-encoded anyway, can we get the current
>> patches merged (with fixes to the commit messages for the openssl
>> examples if needed) and then work on PEM support inside the kernel.
>> For me these seems to be two independent features. And in the current
>> form the patches have been tested and used.
>> 
>> Or let me ask this differently, are there any objections to merging
>> these patches with just DER support?
> 
> Let me rephrase that question slightly: Are we happy to have to make
> inferences from the ASN.1 structure, and in particular that a bare
> OCTET-STRING is a TPMv1 blob? I believe James ended up doing something
> somewhat more sensible for the TPMv2 blob so that might end up being
> OK...?

similar to Denis’ comment, I don’t see an issue here with using DER encoding.

James, can you take this series into your -next tree?

Regards

Marcel