Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
In many ways, I think that the type and description describe the purpose of
the key, not its source or derivation.
> > But if you're going to use a user-defined key, you really need to prefix
> > the description with something suitable.
>
> 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
I don't think you understood what I meant. If you look at the following
function:
+static struct key *request_master_key(struct encrypted_key_payload *epayload,
+ void **master_key,
+ unsigned int *master_keylen)
+{
+ struct key *mkey;
+
+ mkey = request_trusted_key(epayload->master_desc,
+ master_key, master_keylen);
+ if (IS_ERR(mkey)) {
+ mkey = request_user_key(epayload->master_desc,
+ master_key, master_keylen);
+ if (IS_ERR(mkey)) {
+ pr_info("encrypted_key: trusted/user key %s not found",
+ epayload->master_desc);
+ return mkey;
+ }
+ }
+ dump_master_key(*master_key, *master_keylen);
+ return mkey;
+}
In the bit where you go for a user key (having failed to get a trusted key),
you should prefix the description here (or in request_user_key()) with
something like "trusted:". Then you don't need to change the user interface.
David
--
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
