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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1564489420-677-1-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org>
 <CAE=Ncrb63dQLe-nDQyO9OPv7XjwM_9mzL9SrcLiUi2Dr10cD4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFA6WYPJAzbPdcpBqioxjY=T8RLw-73B_hpzX4cGnwVvm5zpJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE=Ncrb23q++z8R8UMbjDE2epEq4YVcNGzrRD31eH3JAooYejg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFA6WYOKcOzSwakHhgshZcebD8ZBMSi7xQdjWYFS79=Xc+odOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE=NcrYz8bT9zDhS_ZcvY84fpeTDxZ-KhJKeQGGyf=o4pG2J-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <19d9be198619e951750dedeb4d0a7f372083b42c.camel@pengutronix.de> <CAE=NcraqD9FNM0Gk9UGhPGi3heVzZrAKGc1gNZxoe1OnDaQ=pA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE=NcraqD9FNM0Gk9UGhPGi3heVzZrAKGc1gNZxoe1OnDaQ=pA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:28:32 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFA6WYPt4q+jaJbaoauXKr2qKgBHvtQ663s4t=W3nuPJPe2xpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tee-dev] [RFC v2 0/6] Introduce TEE based Trusted Keys support
To:     Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@gmail.com>
Cc:     Rouven Czerwinski <r.czerwinski@pengutronix.de>,
        "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" <tee-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dhowells@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 13:00, Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:50 AM Rouven Czerwinski
> <r.czerwinski@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > > I'm aware of it - I have implemented a large part of the GP TEE APIs
> > > earlier (primarily the crypto functions). Does the TEE you work with
> > > actually support GP properly? Can I take a look at the code?
> >
> > AFAIK Sumit is working with the OP-TEE implementation, which can be
> > found on github: https://github.com/op-tee/optee_os
>
> Thanks, I will take a look.

For documentation, refer to: https://optee.readthedocs.io/

> The fundamental problem with these things
> is that there are infinite amount of ways how TEEs and ROTs can be
> done in terms of the hardware and software. I really doubt there are 2
> implementations in existence that are even remotely compatible in real
> life.

I agree with you regarding implementation specific nature of TEE but
having a standardized client interface does solves the problem.

> As such, all things TEE/ROT would logically really belong in the
> userland and thanks to the bpfilter folks now the umh logic really
> makes that possible ... I think. The key implementation I did was just
> an RFC on the concept, what if we start to move the stuff that really
> belongs in the userspace to this pseudo-userland. It's not kernel, but
> it's not commonly accessible userland either. The shared memory would
> also work without any modifications between the umh based TEE/ROT
> driver and the userland if needed.
>
> Anyway, just my .02c. I guess having any new support in the kernel for
> new trust sources is good and improvement from the current state. I
> can certainly make my stuff work with your setup as well, what ever
> people think is the best.

Yes your implementation can very well fit under trusted keys
abstraction framework without creating a new keytype: "ext-trusted".

-Sumit

>
>
> --
> Janne