From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4][RFC v2] Introduce the in-kernel hibernation encryption Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:05:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20180724120541.GE26036@amd> References: <20180718202235.GA4132@amd> <20180718235851.GA22170@sandybridge-desktop> <20180719110149.GA4679@amd> <20180719132003.GA30981@sandybridge-desktop> <20180720102532.GA20284@amd> <1532346156.3057.11.camel@suse.com> <20180723122227.GA30092@amd> <20180723163848.GB4503@sandybridge-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PPYy/fEw/8QCHSq3" Cc: Oliver Neukum , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Eric Biggers , "Lee, Chun-Yi" , Theodore Ts o , Stephan Mueller , Denis Kenzior , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Gu, Kookoo" , "Zhang, Rui" To: Yu Chen Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180723163848.GB4503@sandybridge-desktop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org --PPYy/fEw/8QCHSq3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! > > > Yes. But you are objecting to encryption in kernel space at all, > > > aren't you? > >=20 > > I don't particulary love the idea of doing hibernation encryption in > > the kernel, correct. > >=20 > > But we have this weird thing called secure boot, some people seem to > > want. So we may need some crypto in the kernel -- but I'd like > > something that works with uswsusp, too. Plus, it is mandatory that > > patch explains what security guarantees they want to provide against > > what kinds of attacks... > >=20 > > Lee, Chun-Yi's patch seemed more promising. Pavel > >=20 > The only difference between Chun-Yi's hibernation encrytion solution > and our solution is that his strategy encrypts the snapshot from sratch,= =20 > and ours encryts each page before them going to block device. The benefit > of his solution is that the snapshot can be encrypt in kernel first > thus the uswsusp is allowed to read it to user space even kernel > is lock down. And I had a discussion with Chun-Yi that we can use > his snapshot solution to make uswsusp happy, and we share the crypto > help code and he can also use our user provided key for his signature. > >From this point of view, our code are actually the same, except that > we can help clean up the code and also enhance some encrytion process > for his solution. I don't know why you don't like encryption in kernel,= =20 > because from my point of view, without encryption hibernation in kernel, > uswsusp could not be enabled if kernel is lock down : -) Or do I miss som= ething? We can do encryption in kernel if really needed, but I don't have to like it, do I? :-). I understand what Chun-Yi's code is trying to do. I can't say the same about yours. Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --PPYy/fEw/8QCHSq3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAltXFhUACgkQMOfwapXb+vLnWwCeJAvOynLyjmdkzUL2tSyyomge OtoAn1Q7/LfOdO5IWHWO83ULyQXgfb4p =bAyw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PPYy/fEw/8QCHSq3--