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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1422379992.2912.6.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:33:12 +0200
From:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:	Scot Doyle <lkml14@...tdoyle.com>, 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, 2015-01-27 at 19:23 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 10:03 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 06:57:22PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > +	/* 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.
> > > 
> > > Right. I can update the patch to ignore return value if the majority
> > > wants that.
> > 
> > What happens to the system when pnp_driver.resume() returns failure?
> > 
> > Should tpm ever report failure on resume to the rest of the kernel?
> > 
> > Shouldn't this stuff be in tpm_pm_resume common code anyhow?
> 
> I think it should but not in the scope of this bug fix IMHO.

This may sound stupid but maybe I should not handle the return value of
tpm_do_selftest() with the same reasoning (not in the scope of this fix)
because it modifies semantics and my fix only fixes TPM 2.0 stuff.

I could leave a comment there that this return value is not handle as a
remainder.

> > Jason

/Jarkko

--
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/