linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm: Fix expected number of response bytes of TPM1.2 PCR Extend

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:48:38 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Fix expected number of response bytes of TPM1.2
 PCR Extend

On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 20:45 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 07:46:38AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > Hi James,
> > 
> > On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 20:09 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:56:23AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > > The TPM1.2 PCR Extend operation only returns 20 bytes in the body,
> > > > which is the size of the PCR state.
> > > > 
> > > > This fixes a problem where IMA gets errors with every PCR Extend.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: c659af78eb7b ("tpm: Check size of response before accessing data")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > This patch needs to be included with the rest of the patches being
> > upstreamed in the next open window.   Should Jarkko or I send you a pull
> > request for it?

> I'm sending a pull request after the weekend. It will contain
> only a few small scoped fixes so wouldn't it be easiest if I
> just include this to the pack?

As long as it makes it into the James' pull request to Linus, that's
fine.

Mimi