[PATCH v2] fscrypt: support trusted keys
jarkko at kernel.org
Tue Aug 10 21:21:40 UTC 2021
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
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.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive