On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 13:12, Paul Moore [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 11:01 PM Randy Dunlap [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[add security & dhowells]

On 11/13/23 18:23, Kelvie Wong wrote:

quoted

This allows the user to tell the kernel that they know better (namely,
they secured their swap properly), and that it can enable hibernation.

I've been using this for about a year now, as it doesn't seem like
proper secure hibernation was going to be implemented back then, and
it's now been a year since I've been building my own kernels with this
patch, so getting this upstreamed would save some CO2 from me building
my own kernels every upgrade.

Some other not-me users have also tested the patch:

https://community.frame.work/t/guide-fedora-36-hibernation-with-enabled-secure-boot-and-full-disk-encryption-fde-decrypting-over-tpm2/25474/17

Signed-off-by: Kelvie Wong <redacted>

I would feel a lot better about this if there was a way to verify that
the swap was protected as opposed to leaving that as a note in a doc
that the majority of users will never see, read, or understand.

I'd argue that this wouldn't even be necessary if we detect the swap was
protected -- hibernation should just be enabled in that case without setting
any parameters.

My understanding is that it was disabled waiting for this
functionality, and it's been
at least a couple of years now [1], so it looks like it's not such an
easy problem.

Anyway, my argument is that the majority of users will never use this kernel
parameter anyway, so I think it's a fair assumption that the power users that
*do* use this will educate themselves on why this parameter even exists.

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/847042/

-- 
Kelvie