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...?
similar to Denis’ comment, I don’t see an issue here with using DER encoding. James, can you take this series into your -next tree? Regards Marcel
