Refine thread safety requirements
Split and refine short term requirements for key deletion. Signed-off-by: Janos Follath <janos.follath@arm.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
41d689f389
commit
7ec993d804
1 changed files with 16 additions and 4 deletions
|
@ -67,16 +67,28 @@ In the medium to long term, performing a slow or blocking operation (for example
|
|||
|
||||
We may want to go directly to a more sophisticated approach because when a system works with a global lock, it's typically hard to get rid of it to get more fine-grained concurrency.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key destruction long-term requirements
|
||||
|
||||
As noted above in [“Correctness out of the box”](#correctness-out-of-the-box), when a key is destroyed, it's ok if `psa_destroy_key` allows copies of the key to live until ongoing operations using the key return. In the long term, it would be good to guarantee that `psa_destroy_key` wipes all copies of the key material.
|
||||
### Key destruction short-term requirements
|
||||
|
||||
#### Summary of guarantees when `psa_destroy_key` returns
|
||||
|
||||
* The key identifier doesn't exist. Rationale: this is a functional requirement for persistent keys: the caller can immediately create a new key with the same identifier.
|
||||
* The resources from the key have been freed. Rationale: in a low-resource condition, this may be necessary for the caller to re-create a similar key, which should be possible.
|
||||
* The call must not block indefinitely, and in particular cannot wait for an event that is triggered by application code such as calling an abort function. Rationale: this may not strictly be a functional requirement, but it is an expectation `psa_destroy_key` does not block forever due to another thread, which could potentially be another process on a multi-process system.
|
||||
* In the long term, no copy of the key material exists. Rationale: this is a security requirement. We do not have this requirement yet, but we need to document this as a security weakness, and we would like to become compliant.
|
||||
|
||||
As noted above in [“Correctness out of the box”](#correctness-out-of-the-box), destroying a key while it's in use is undefined behavior. The only guarantee in this case is that it won't cause data corruption or read-after-free inside the key store. In particular, any or all the listed guarantees may be violated when `psa_destroy_key` is called on a key that is in use.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key destruction long-term requirements
|
||||
|
||||
The [PSA Crypto API specification](https://armmbed.github.io/mbed-crypto/html/api/keys/management.html#key-destruction) mandates that implementations make a best effort to ensure that that the key material cannot be recovered. In the long term, it would be good to guarantee that `psa_destroy_key` wipes all copies of the key material.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Summary of guarantees when `psa_destroy_key` returns
|
||||
|
||||
* The key identifier doesn't exist. Rationale: this is a functional requirement for persistent keys: the caller can immediately create a new key with the same identifier.
|
||||
* The resources from the key have been freed. Rationale: in a low-resource condition, this may be necessary for the caller to re-create a similar key, which should be possible.
|
||||
* The call must not block indefinitely, and in particular cannot wait for an event that is triggered by application code such as calling an abort function. Rationale: this may not strictly be a functional requirement, but it is an expectation `psa_destroy_key` does not block forever due to another thread, which could potentially be another process on a multi-process system.
|
||||
* No copy of the key material exists. Rationale: this is a security requirement. We do not have this requirement yet, but we need to document this as a security weakness, and we would like to become compliant.
|
||||
|
||||
As opposed to the short term requirements, the above guarantees hold even if `psa_destroy_key` is called on a key that is in use.
|
||||
|
||||
## Resources to protect
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue