Re: [PATCH] tpm: add backend for mssim

[James Bottomley]

On Mon, 2022-12-12 at 14:32 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/12/22 14:12, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-12-12 at 13:58 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > On 12/12/22 13:48, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2022-12-12 at 11:59 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > > > On 12/12/22 11:38, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > > the kernel use of the TPM, but I'm trying to fix that.  The
> > > > > > standard mssim server is too simplistic to do transport
> > > > > > layer
> > > > > > security, but like everything that does this (or rather
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > do this), you can front it with stunnel4.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And who or what is going to set this up?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure I understand the question.  Stunnel4 is mostly
> > > > used to
> > > > convert unencrypted proxies like imap on 143 or smtp on 25 to
> > > > the
> > > > secure version.  Most people who run servers are fairly
> > > > familiar
> > > > with using it.  It's what IBM used for encrypted migration
> > > > initially.  You can run stunnel on both ends, or the qemu side
> > > > could be built in using the qemu tls-creds way of doing things
> > > > but
> > > > anything running the standard MS server would have to front it
> > > > with
> > > > stunnel still.
> > > 
> > > So it's up to libvirt to setup stunnel to support a completely
> > > different setup than what it has for swtpm already?
> > 
> > I don't think so, no.  Libvirt doesn't usually help with server
> > setup (witness the complexity of setting up a server side vtpm
> > proxy) so in the case tls-creds were built in, it would just work
> > if the object is
> 
> I see, so you are extending the TPM emulator with TLS on the client
> side so you don't need another tool to setup a TLS connection from
> the QEMU/client side.

I didn't say I would do this, just that it's an easy possibility with
the current qemu framework.  I actually need to fiddle with the TPM
externally to do some of my testing (like platform reset injection) so
I won't use TLS anyway.

> Is the server side across the network or on the same host?

It can be either.

>  Either way, what is the latency that this introduces because I would
> expect that this slows down IMA since the PCR extensions & TPM 2
> response now go back and forth across the network?

Most data centre protocols are now encrypted and networked (NVMeoF
would probably be the poster child) with no real ill effects.  In terms
of a TPM, the competition is an underpowered discrete chip over a slow
serial bus, so I think we'll actually improve the latency not diminish
it.

James