linux-kernel - Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 2/7] tpm: validate TPM 2.0 commands

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

Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:16:14 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:     Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com
Cc:     jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        dhowells@...hat.com, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 2/7] tpm: validate TPM 2.0 commands

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 03:40:15PM +0000, Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com wrote:

> 1. I've got a TPM that implements vendor-specific command
> codes. Those cannot be send to the TPM anymore, but are rejected
> with EINVAL.
> 
> 2. When upgrading the firmware on my TPM, it switches to a
> non-standard communication mode for the upgrade process and does not
> communicate using TPM2.0 commands during this time. Rejecting
> non-TPM2.0 commands means upgrading won't be possible anymore.

How non standard? Is the basic header even there? Are the lengths
and status code right?

This might be an argument to add a 'raw' ioctl or something
specifically for this special case.

Jason