lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5 v2] PM / hibernate: Create snapshot keys handler
    On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:59:06PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
    > On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 16:33 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 07:28:58AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
    > > > On Fri, 2019-01-11 at 16:02 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    > > > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 05:43:53PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
    > > > > > (Also, do we have a sensible story of how the TPM interacts
    > > > > > with hibernation at all? Presumably we should at least try to
    > > > > > replay the PCR operations that have occurred so that we can
    > > > > > massage the PCRs into the same state post-hibernation. Also,
    > > > > > do we have any way for the kernel to sign something with the
    > > > > > TPM along with an attestation that the signature was requested
    > > > > > *by the kernel*? Something like a sub-hierarchy of keys that
    > > > > > the kernel explicitly prevents userspace from accessing?)
    > > > >
    > > > > Kernel can keep it is own key hierarchy in memory as TPM2 chips
    > > > > allow to offload data in encrypted form and load it to TPM when
    > > > > it needs to use it.
    > > > >
    > > > > The in-kernel resource manager that I initiated couple years ago
    > > > > provides this type of functionality.
    > > >
    > > > Actually, the resource manager only keeps volatile objects
    > > > separated when in use not when offloaded. The problem here is that
    > > > the object needs to be persisted across reboots, so either it gets
    > > > written to the NV area, bypassing the resource manager and making
    > > > it globally visible or it has to get stored in TPM form in the
    > > > hibernation image, meaning anyone with access to the TPM who can
    > > > read the image can extract and load it. Further: anyone with access
    > > > to the TPM can create a bogus sealed key and encrypt a malicious
    > > > hibernation image with it. So there are two additional problems
    > > >
    > > > 1. Given that the attacker may have access to the binary form of
    > > > the
    > > > key, can we make sure only the kernel can get it released?
    > > > 2. How do we prevent an attacker with access to the TPM from
    > > > creating a
    > > > bogus sealed key?
    > > >
    > > > This is why I was thinking localities.
    > >
    > > Why you would want to go for localities and not seal to PCRs?
    >
    > Because the requested functionality was a key that would be accessible
    > to the kernel and not to user space and also guaranteed created by the
    > kernel. The only discriminator we have to enforce that is the locality
    > (assuming we reserve a locality as accessible to the kernel but
    > inaccessible to userspace). PCRs alone can't restrict where the key is
    > accessed or created from.

    OK, locality would probably make sense, assuming that the key is stored
    in nvram.

    /Jarkko

    /Jarkko

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-01-20 17:03    [W:4.907 / U:0.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site