From: Mimi Zohar Subject: Re: [PATCH v1.3 4/4] keys: add new key-type encrypted Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:33:46 -0500 Message-ID: <1289694826.3257.82.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1289595738.2731.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1289404309-15955-5-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1289404309-15955-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <26689.1289591135@redhat.com> <27900.1289597013@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@linux-nfs.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe , James Morris , David Safford , Rajiv Andrade , Mimi Zohar To: David Howells Return-path: In-Reply-To: <27900.1289597013@redhat.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 21:23 +0000, David Howells wrote: > Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > Why do you allow the master key to be supplied by a user-defined key rather > > > than requiring a trusted-key unconditionally? > > > > This is for systems without a TPM. The logic needs to exist, whether it > > is here or in EVM. By doing it here, a user could provide a passphrase > > in the initramfs, which is used to decrypt the encrypted key. > > I thought that might be the case. In which case, it might be better to allow > someone to add a trusted key, supplying both encrypted and unencrypted > versions of the data so that the TPM need not be consulted. You might want to > mark such a key so that it can be seen when it is dumped. At least to me, the name 'trusted' implies some form of HW. > But if you're going to use a user-defined key, you really need to prefix the > description with something suitable. > > David Agreed. So instead of: keyctl add encrypted name "new master-key-name keylen" ring the description would be prefixed with the key type like: keyctl add encrypted name "new trusted|user master-key-name keylen" ring thanks, Mimi