Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/22] KEYS: Support TPM-wrapped key and crypto ops | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:45:26 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 09:26 +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi David, > > > > > Yes. It shouldn't be much code, either. You still have to check for X.509 > > > > DER since the kernel currently supports that. > > > > > > For reasons of backward compatibility, correct? The kernel also has > > > mscode.asn1 which we would need to support as well. Since we can't break > > > compatibility then perhaps this doesn't buy us a whole lot in the end. > > > > Don't worry about mscode - that's not an asymmetric key parser. That's only > > ever used directly from verify_pefile_signature(). > > > > Currently, we have to retain support for DER-encoded X.509. > > > > But there's no reason we can't have a PEM parser that decodes the PEM and > > selects X.509, PKCS#8 or TPM based on the ascii header in that. PKCS#8 and > > TPM don't need to take DER directly. > > since we have to support DER-encoded anyway, can we get the current > patches merged (with fixes to the commit messages for the openssl > examples if needed) and then work on PEM support inside the kernel. > For me these seems to be two independent features. And in the current > form the patches have been tested and used. > > Or let me ask this differently, are there any objections to merging > these patches with just DER support?
Let me rephrase that question slightly: Are we happy to have to make inferences from the ASN.1 structure, and in particular that a bare OCTET-STRING is a TPMv1 blob? I believe James ended up doing something somewhat more sensible for the TPMv2 blob so that might end up being OK...?
[unhandled content-type:application/x-pkcs7-signature] | |