On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:05:58PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:16:35AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 10:12:41AM -0600, Dr. Greg Wettstein wrote:
> > > The kernel needs a resource manager. Everyone needs to think VERY
> > > hard and VERY, VERY carefully about what gets put into the kernel. In
> > > making a decision, put the ABSOLUTE smallest amount of code into the
> > > kernel which allows various 'TPM2 personalities' to be implemented in
> > > userspace and functionally verified and protected by the physical
> > > instance. The emergence of commodity TEE's (SGX, et.al) should be in
> > > the back of everyone's mind as a factor in the roadmap.
> >
> > Here's my cuts for the kernel:
> >
> > - Kernel virtualizes handle areas. It's mechanical.
> > - Kernel does not virtualize bodies. It's not mechanical.
> > - At least the first version of the RM will not do other than session
> > isolation for sessions.
> >
> > This keeps the core for RM inside the kernel small and tight.
>
> I think this makes sense.
>
> In addition the kernel should only permit RM operations that are known
> to be 100% correct with the RM.
>
> I think you should stick with your original design basic design,
> except instead of using an ioctl to switch modes, use an ioctl to
> execute the operation:
>
> struct tpm_ioctl_operation {
> u16 mode; // == TPM1_RAW,TPM2_RAW,TPM1_RM,TPM2_RM
> u16 locality;
> u32 txlen;
> u32 rxlen;
> const void *txbuf;
> void *rxbuf;
> };
>
> The userspace broker would be expected to use a mixture of RM and RAW
> operations.
>
> Let's deal with the idea of another cdev some other day when someone
> can figure out a comprehensive way to do that securely for unpriv..
James, what do you think about this proposal?
/Jarkko
