[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF9A2A62B8.D4E0AE57-ON852574A2.006CEDC6-852574A2.00749DAC@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:13:51 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, safford@...son.ibm.com,
sailer@...son.ibm.com, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Debora Velarde <debora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kenneth Goldman <kgold@...son.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] integrity: TPM internel kernel interface
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote on 08/09/2008 02:46:22 PM:
> > +{
> > + struct tpm_chip *pos;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&driver_lock);
> > + list_for_each_entry(pos, &tpm_chip_list, list) {
> > + if ((chip_num == TPM_ANY_NUM || pos->dev_num == chip_num)
> > + && (chip_typ == TPM_ANY_TYPE)) {
> > + spin_unlock(&driver_lock);
> > + return pos;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_unlock(&driver_lock);
>
> besides the usual coding style issues, what protects the chip from going
> away afer you dropped the lock?
>
I assume the concern here is that between looking up the chip and actually
using the chip, the TPM chip is disabled/deactivated. Based on
discussions
with Kenneth Goldman, the TCG main specification part2: structures,
require
that even if the TPM is disabled/deactivated, the command to extend the
PCR
will succeed, but the command to read the PCR will fail with an
appropriate
error code.
Mimi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists