Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 03:17:43 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, kernel@pengutronix.de,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: support trusted keys
Message-ID: <20210811001743.ofzkwdwa6rcjsf4d@kernel.org>
References: <20210806150928.27857-1-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
 <20210809094408.4iqwsx77u64usfx6@kernel.org>
 <YRGVcaquAJiuc8bp@gmail.com>
 <20210810180636.vqwaeftv7alsodgn@kernel.org>
 <YRLJmaafp941uOdA@gmail.com>
 <20210810212140.sdq5dq2wy5uaj7h7@kernel.org>
 <YRLvPJehAeMiYb2Z@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YRLvPJehAeMiYb2Z@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 02:27:24PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:21:40AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 11:46:49AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 09:06:36PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't think this is right, or at least it does not follow the pattern
> > > > > > in [*]. I.e. you should rather use trusted key to seal your fscrypt key.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What's the benefit of the extra layer of indirection over just using a "trusted"
> > > > > key directly?  The use case for "encrypted" keys is not at all clear to me.
> > > > 
> > > > Because it is more robust to be able to use small amount of trusted keys,
> > > > which are not entirely software based.
> > > > 
> > > > And since it's also a pattern on existing kernel features utilizing trusted
> > > > keys, the pressure here to explain why break the pattern, should be on the
> > > > side of the one who breaks it.
> > > 
> > > This is a new feature, so it's on the person proposing the feature to explain
> > > why it's useful.  The purpose of "encrypted" keys is not at all clear, and the
> > > documentation for them is heavily misleading.  E.g.:
> > > 
> > >     "user space sees, stores, and loads only encrypted blobs"
> > >     (Not necessarily true, as I've explained previously.)
> > > 
> > >     "Encrypted keys do not depend on a trust source" ...  "The main disadvantage
> > >     of encrypted keys is that if they are not rooted in a trusted key"
> > >     (Not necessarily true, and in fact it seems they're only useful when they
> > >     *do* depend on a trust source.  At least that's the use case that is being
> > >     proposed here, IIUC.)
> > > 
> > > I do see a possible use for the layer of indirection that "encrypted" keys are,
> > > which is that it would reduce the overhead of having lots of keys be directly
> > > encrypted by the TPM/TEE/CAAM.  Is this the use case?  If so, it needs to be
> > > explained.
> > 
> > If trusted keys are used directly, it's an introduction of a bottleneck.
> > If they are used indirectly, you can still choose to have one trusted
> > key per fscrypt key.
> > 
> > Thus, it's obviously a bad idea to use them directly.
> > 
> 
> So actually explain that in the documentation.  It's not obvious at all.  And
> does this imply that the support for trusted keys in dm-crypt is a mistake?

Looking at dm-crypt implementation, you can choose to use 'encrypted' key
type, which you can seal with a trusted key.

Note: I have not been involved when the feature was added to dm-crypt.

/Jarkko