Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221111231636.3748636-1-evgreen@chromium.org>
 <20221111151451.v5.3.I9ded8c8caad27403e9284dfc78ad6cbd845bc98d@changeid>
 <8ae56656a461d7b957b93778d716c6161070383a.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAHSSk06sH6Ck11R7k8Pk_30KbzLzZVdBdj5MpsNfY-R_1kt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFftDdqUOiysgrAC4wPUXRaEWz4j9V6na3u4bm29AfxE8TAyXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHSSk04asd_ac8KLJYNRyR1Z+fD+iUb+UxjUu0U=HbT1-2R7Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <08302ed1c056da86a71aa2e6ca19111075383e75.camel@linux.ibm.com> <CAHSSk058UoBY2nDx8U7-siG_dbjNSKZaPukZVjSnq=f=CBSKsw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHSSk058UoBY2nDx8U7-siG_dbjNSKZaPukZVjSnq=f=CBSKsw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   William Roberts <bill.c.roberts@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 15 Jan 2023 08:41:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFftDdooms8AfKRhp3N8G7roCQUaV3CHayeF14gXVqoK3PeTwA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/11] tpm: Allow PCR 23 to be restricted to
 kernel-only use
To:     Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@aurora.tech>
Cc:     jejb@linux.ibm.com, Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>, gwendal@chromium.org,
        dianders@chromium.org, apronin@chromium.org,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Ben Boeckel <me@benboeckel.net>,
        rjw@rjwysocki.net, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        dlunev@google.com, zohar@linux.ibm.com, jarkko@kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 9:05 PM Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@aurora.tech> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 6:55 AM James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Can we go back again to why you can't use locality?  It's exactly
> > designed for this since locality is part of creation data.  Currently
> > everything only uses locality 0, so it's impossible for anyone on Linux
> > to produce a key with anything other than 0 in the creation data for
> > locality.  However, the dynamic launch people are proposing that the
> > Kernel should use Locality 2 for all its operations, which would allow
> > you to distinguish a key created by the kernel from one created by a
> > user by locality.
> >
> > I think the previous objection was that not all TPMs implement
> > locality, but then not all laptops have TPMs either, so if you ever
> > come across one which has a TPM but no locality, it's in a very similar
> > security boat to one which has no TPM.
>
> It's not a question of TPM support, it's a question of platform
> support. Intel chipsets that don't support TXT simply don't forward
> requests with non-0 locality. Every Windows-sticker laptop since 2014
> has shipped with a TPM, but the number that ship with TXT support is a
> very small percentage of that. I agree that locality is the obvious
> solution for a whole bunch of problems, but it's just not usable in
> the generic case.

Instead of walling off a PCR, why not wall off an NV Index PCR and
use a policy?