linux-kernel - Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix suspend/resume paths for TPM 2.0

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:	Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:52:05 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Scot Doyle <lkml14@...tdoyle.com>
To:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	peterhuewe@....de, ashley@...leylai.com,
	christophe.ricard@...il.com, jason.gunthorpe@...idianresearch.com,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	trousers-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix suspend/resume paths for TPM
 2.0

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Fixed suspend/resume paths for TPM 2.0 and consolidated all the
> associated code to the tpm_pm_suspend() and tpm_pm_resume()
> functions. Resume path should be handled by the firmware, i.e.
> Startup(CLEAR) for hibernate and Startup(STATE) for suspend.
> 
> There might be some non-PC embedded devices in the future where
> Startup() is not the handled by the FW but fixing the code for
> those IMHO should be postponed until there is hardware available
> to test the fixes although extra Startup in the driver code is
> essentially a NOP.
> 
> Reported-by: Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@....de>
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> ---

...

> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
> @@ -865,25 +865,23 @@ static void tpm_tis_reenable_interrupts(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>  static int tpm_tis_resume(struct device *dev)
>  {

...

> +	/* TPM 1.2 requires self-test on resume. */
> +	if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)) {
> +		ret = tpm_do_selftest(chip);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;

Just to note, the return value from tpm_do_selftest() on TPM 1.2 chips was 
previously ignored. Mine does return 0.