Re: [openssl-dev] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread Richard Levitte
⁣There seems to be some confusion here. James, I understand the tpm engine as an external project, not part of the OpenSSL source proper and not intended to be. However, openssl-dev@openssl.org is a list focused on the development of OpenSSL proper. That makes it a bit odd to discuss the tpm

Re: [openssl-dev] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread Salz, Rich
> > I'm still waiting on a reply ... I assume holidays are contributing to the > > delay. > > However, openssl_tpm_engine is a DCO project, so that concern is > > irrelevant here. > > Sorry, I'll push to get the bylaws made public, is that what you need? The OSF bylaws are now linked to from

Re: [openssl-dev] [TrouSerS-tech] [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 16:11 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 02:52:43PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > This patch adds RSA signing for TPM2 keys. There's a limitation to > > the way TPM2 does signing: it must recognise the OID for the > > signature. That fails for the

Re: [openssl-dev] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread Richard Levitte
In message <1483487075.2464.59.ca...@hansenpartnership.com> on Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:44:35 -0800, James Bottomley said: James.Bottomley> On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 12:19 +0100, Richard Levitte wrote: James.Bottomley> > ⁣There seems to be some confusion here.

Re: [openssl-dev] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 18:22 +, Salz, Rich wrote: > > I'm still waiting on a reply ... I assume holidays are contributing > > to the delay. However, openssl_tpm_engine is a DCO project, so that > > concern is irrelevant here. > > Sorry, I'll push to get the bylaws made public, is that what

Re: [openssl-dev] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 12:19 +0100, Richard Levitte wrote: > ⁣There seems to be some confusion here. > > James, I understand the tpm engine as an external project, not part > of the OpenSSL source proper and not intended to be. > > However, openssl-dev@openssl.org is a list focused on the

Re: [openssl-dev] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 00:04 +, Matt Caswell wrote: > > On 03/01/17 12:44, Salz, Rich wrote: > > > > I'm still waiting on a reply ... I assume holidays are > > > > contributing to the delay. > > > > However, openssl_tpm_engine is a DCO project, so that concern > > > > is > > > > irrelevant

Re: [openssl-dev] [TrouSerS-tech] [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread Piche, Simon
-Original Message- From: openssl-dev [mailto:openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of James Bottomley Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 6:23 PM To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: trousers-t...@lists.sourceforge.net; tpmdd-de...@lists.sourceforge.net;

Re: [openssl-dev] [TrouSerS-tech] [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 16:40 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 03:22:56PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > I think it is very important to natively support the sign-only > > > key usage restriction. TPM1.2 goes so far as to declare keys that > > > can be used for arbitary

Re: [openssl-dev] [PATCH 1/1] add TPM2 version of create_tpm2_key and libtpm2.so engine

2017-01-03 Thread Matt Caswell
On 03/01/17 12:44, Salz, Rich wrote: >>> I'm still waiting on a reply ... I assume holidays are contributing to the >>> delay. >>> However, openssl_tpm_engine is a DCO project, so that concern is >>> irrelevant here. >> >> Sorry, I'll push to get the bylaws made public, is that what you need? >