linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 8/8] tpm: TPM 2.0 FIFO Interface

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1412141817550.1716@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 2014 18:27:50 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Scot Doyle <lkml14@...tdoyle.com>
To:	Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
	Ashley Lai <ashley@...leylai.com>,
	Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, christophe.ricard@...il.com,
	jason.gunthorpe@...idianresearch.com,
	Will Arthur <will.c.arthur@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 8/8] tpm: TPM 2.0 FIFO Interface

On Sun, 14 Dec 2014, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 12/14/2014 10:40 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 09:48:26AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > On 12/12/2014 02:46 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > Detect TPM 2.0 by sending idempotent TPM 2.x command. Ordinals for
> > > > TPM 2.0 are higher than TPM 1.x commands so this should be fail-safe.
> > > > Using STS3 is unreliable because some chips just report 0xff and not
> > > > what the spec says.
> > > TPM TIS 1.2 can report either 0xff or 0x00 for sts3 since that part of
> > > register was not defined for this version but only for a later version.
> > > So,
> > > unless the TIS 1.3 for TPM 2.0 is broken, it should report a bit _pattern_
> > > (not plain 0x00 or 0xff) that you could apply the suggested mask to and
> > > check then.
> > I propose this: lets keep the bit ugly but approach for now and when
> > there are TPM2 FIFOs available in the market move to your workaround.
> > I think that would be the most reasonable middle road here.
> 
> You are now calling tpm2_gen_interrupt and are looking at the rc, which is the
> rc from tpm_transmit_cmd, which seems to make sure that the sending of the
> command went alright and the reception of the response. Is this good enough to
> distinguish between a TPM 2 and a TPM 1.2? If you send a valid TPM 2 command
> to a TPM 1.2 this will at least transmit the data ok, but the TPM will respond
> with a TPM 1.2 tag in the response. The way I understand the code, the rc does
> not include whether the response packet is a valid TPM 2 response packet and
> lets you conclude to a TPM2. I do something similar in upcoming QEMU patches
> where I send a valid TPM2 command for probing and if the tag(!) in the
> response is a TPM2 tag (0x8001 = TPM_ST_NO_SESSIONS), then it's a TPM 2,
> otherwise a TPM 1.2.
> 
> Did you test this with a TPM 1.2 ?
> 
>    Stefan

One system's output, with a dev_info call to show the value of rc:
[ 0.223837] tpm_tis 00:08: tpm2_gen_interrupt(chip, true) -> 0xa
[ 0.223847] tpm_tis 00:08: 1.2 TPM (device-id 0xB, rev-id 16)
[ 0.280468] tpm_tis 00:08: [Firmware Bug]: TPM interrupt not working, polling instead

--
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/