On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 21:23 +0000, David Howells wrote: > Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
