Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210303135500.24673-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
 <20210303135500.24673-2-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <CAK8P3a0W5X8Mvq0tDrz7d67SfQA=PqthpnGDhn8w1Xhwa030-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210305075131.GA15940@goby> <CAK8P3a0qtByN4Fnutr1yetdVZkPJn87yK+w+_DAUXOMif-13aA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdb4RkQvDBgTMW_+7yYBsHNRyJZiT5bn04uQJgk7tKGDOA@mail.gmail.com> <178479.1615309961@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <178479.1615309961@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
From:   Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Mar 2021 10:24:33 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFA6WYOvszeEBUL6_mhX90zZMFAtGN6f=tBAC7L43ik00Js7=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@linaro.org>,
        "open list:ASYMMETRIC KEYS" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        Joakim Bech <joakim.bech@linaro.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBCZW5uw6ll?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
        Ruchika Gupta <ruchika.gupta@linaro.org>,
        "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>, yang.huang@intel.com,
        bing.zhu@intel.com, Matti.Moell@opensynergy.com,
        hmo@opensynergy.com, linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvme@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>,
        Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi David,

On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 22:43, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > As it seems neither Microsoft nor Apple is paying it much attention
> > (+/- new facts) it will be up to the community to define use cases
> > for RPMB. I don't know what would make most sense, but the
> > kernel keyring seems to make a bit of sense as it is a well maintained
> > keyring project.
>
> I'm afraid I don't know a whole lot about the RPMB.  I've just been and read
> https://lwn.net/Articles/682276/ about it.
>
> What is it you envision the keyring API doing with regard to this?  Being used
> to represent the key needed to access the RPMB or being used to represent an
> RPMB entry (does it have entries?)?
>

I think it's the former one to represent the RPMB key and it looks
like the trusted and encrypted keys subsystem should be useful here to
prevent any user-space exposures of the RPMB key.

-Sumit

> David
>