[PATCH v1 0/3] KEYS: trusted: Introduce support for NXP CAAM-based trusted keys

Sumit Garg sumit.garg at linaro.org
Thu Apr 1 14:12:49 UTC 2021

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 19:29, Richard Weinberger <richard at nod.at> wrote:
> Sumit,
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Sumit Garg" <sumit.garg at linaro.org>
> > In this case why would one prefer to use CAAM when you have standards
> > compliant TPM-Chip which additionally offers sealing to specific PCR
> > (integrity measurement) values.
> I don't think we can dictate what good/sane solutions are and which are not.
> Both CAAM and TPM have pros and cons, I don't see why supporting both is a bad idea.

I didn't mean to say that supporting both is a bad idea but rather I
was looking for use-cases where one time selection of the best trust
source (whether it be a TPM or TEE or CAAM etc.) for a platform
wouldn't suffice for user needs.

> >> > IMHO allowing only one backend at the same time is a little over simplified.
> >>
> >> It is, but I'd rather leave this until it's actually needed.
> >> What can be done now is adopting a format for the exported keys that would
> >> make this extension seamless in future.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> As long we don't make multiple backends at runtime impossible I'm
> fine and will happily add support for it when needed. :-)

You are most welcome to add such support. I will be happy to review it.


> Thanks,
> //richard

More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list