Jarkko, > On 25.09.2023, at 17:22, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon Sep 18, 2023 at 5:18 PM EEST, David Gstir wrote: >> DCP is capable to performing AES with hardware-bound keys. >> These keys are not stored in main memory and are therefore not directly >> accessible by the operating system. >> >> So instead of feeding the key into DCP, we need to place a >> reference to such a key before initiating the crypto operation. >> Keys are referenced by a one byte identifiers. > > Not sure what the action of feeding key into DCP even means if such > action does not exists. > > What you probably would want to describe here is how keys get created > and how they are referenced by the kernel. > > For the "use" part please try to avoid academic paper style long > expression starting with "we" pronomine. > > So the above paragraph would normalize into "The keys inside DCP > are referenced by one byte identifier". Here of course would be > for the context nice to know what is this set of DCP keys. E.g. > are total 256 keys or some subset? > > When using too much prose there can be surprsingly little digestable > information, thus this nitpicking. Thanks for reviewing that in detail! I’ll rephrase the commit messages on all patches to get rid of the academic paper style. > >> DCP supports 6 different keys: 4 slots in the secure memory area, >> a one time programmable key which can be burnt via on-chip fuses >> and an unique device key. >> >> Using these keys is restricted to in-kernel users that use them as building >> block for other crypto tools such as trusted keys. Allowing userspace >> (e.g. via AF_ALG) to use these keys to crypt or decrypt data is a security >> risk, because there is no access control mechanism. > > Unless this patch has anything else than trusted keys this should not > be an open-ended sentence. You want to say roughly that DCP hardware > keys are implemented for the sake to implement trusted keys support, > and exactly and only that. > > This description also lacks actions taken by the code changes below, > which is really the beef of any commit description. You’re right. I’ll add that. Thanks, - David
