linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: TPM_STS_DATA

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <b8394ab90910271945j10bd0aduda01cdc0610271f4@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:45:24 +0900
From:	David Smith <david.daniel.smith@...il.com>
To:	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc:	Seiji Munetoh <seiji.munetoh@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
	Andy Isaacson <adi@...apodia.org>, jmorris@...ei.org,
	len.brown@...el.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Andy Isaacson <adi@...are.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Shahbaz Khan <shaz.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT workaround

Hi, can this be merged, please? Using the module parameter is not
optimal but it's better than the complete lack of support today.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Rajiv Andrade
<srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> This was already tested and, given no more comments on it, finally
> reviewed. Can it already be merged?
>
> Thanks,
> Rajiv
>
> On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 08:34 +0900, Seiji Munetoh wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Rajiv Andrade
>> <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > Some newer Lenovo models are shipped with a TPM that doesn't seem to set the TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT status bit
>> > when sending it a burst of data, so the code understands it as a failure and doesn't proceed sending the chip
>> > the intended data. In this patch we bypass this bit check in case the itpm module parameter was set.
>> >
>> > This patch is based on Andy Isaacson's one:
>> >
>> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124650185023495&w=2
>> >
>> > It was heavily discussed how should we deal with identifying the chip in kernel space, but the required
>> > patch to do so was NACK'd:
>> >
>> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124650186423711&w=2
>> >
>> > This way we let the user choose using this workaround or not based on his
>> > observations on this code behavior when trying to use the TPM.
>> >
>> > Fixed a checkpatch issue present on the previous patch, thanks to Daniel Walker.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> As far as I know, only the intel tpm has this PNP issue, so I'm fine with it.
>>
>> Tested-by: Seiji Munetoh <seiji.munetoh@...il.com>
>>
>> > ---
>> > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
>> > index aec1931..c9990db 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
>> > @@ -257,6 +257,10 @@ out:
>> >        return size;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > +static int itpm;
>> > +module_param(itpm, bool, 0444);
>> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(itpm, "Force iTPM workarounds (found on some Lenovo laptops)");
>> > +
>> >  /*
>> >  * If interrupts are used (signaled by an irq set in the vendor structure)
>> >  * tpm.c can skip polling for the data to be available as the interrupt is
>> > @@ -293,7 +297,7 @@ static int tpm_tis_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t len)
>> >                wait_for_stat(chip, TPM_STS_VALID, chip->vendor.timeout_c,
>> >                              &chip->vendor.int_queue);
>> >                status = tpm_tis_status(chip);
>> > -               if ((status & TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT) == 0) {
>> > +               if (!itpm && (status & TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT) == 0) {
>> >                        rc = -EIO;
>> >                        goto out_err;
>> >                }
>> > @@ -467,6 +471,10 @@ static int tpm_tis_init(struct device *dev, resource_size_t start,
>> >                 "1.2 TPM (device-id 0x%X, rev-id %d)\n",
>> >                 vendor >> 16, ioread8(chip->vendor.iobase + TPM_RID(0)));
>> >
>> > +       if (itpm)
>> > +               dev_info(dev, "Intel iTPM workaround enabled\n");
>> > +
>> > +
>> >        /* Figure out the capabilities */
>> >        intfcaps =
>> >            ioread32(chip->vendor.iobase +
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> 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/
>
>
--
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/