linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5

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]

Date:	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:50:23 +0200
From:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Wilck@...el.com, Martin <martin.wilck@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:56:53PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> > Hi James,
> > 
> > I'm sorry for the late pull request for 4.5. The reason for this was
> > the latency in my previous one. I picked with care the absolutely
> > critical fixes so that we can make a sound tpmdd release.
> > 
> > I really hope you can still pick these as one of them is absolutely
> > critical to get authorization policy sealing API right (kernel keeps
> > it finger out of user space created objects).
> 
> Pushed to next for more testing and review.
> 
> This really is getting too late in the development cycle for so many 
> fixes.  It means the code was not ready to be merged in the first place.

I fully agree what you're saying. I'll learn the lesson here and take
factors more conservative attitude from now on. No excuses. I'm sorry
about this.

Partly the reason for recent increase in regressions has been
increased real-world use of TPM2 and thus issues have started to pop
up that's a lame excuse anyway.

> Also, any idea why I'm seeing this:
> 
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c:838: warning: ‘tpm_tis_resume’ defined but not 
> used

Bisected the patch: 00194826e6be

Do you want me to send a pull request containing a fix for the build
warning or reverting the whole commit? My call would be to apply the
fix because this commit has been tested both TPM 1.2 by Martin and
with TPM 2.0 by me and things have worked well.

I can live with either option.

I already pushed a fix to my master for this issue:

https://github.com/jsakkine/linux-tpmdd/commit/6386544ad7bceb3d0248b85da29d4d99eebe9161

> -- 
> James Morris
> <jmorris@...ei.org>

I've been recently working on a custom BR environment that bundles my
latest master with initramfs user space [1]. At minimum I'll start
using this environment to create builds of this env with and without
PM for release testing and run the images both 1.2 and 2.0 HW.

This should prevent the warning you experienced never happening again.

[1]  http://git.infradead.org/users/jjs/buildroot-tpmdd.git

/Jarkko