[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160720205314.GA6525@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 23:53:14 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix a race condition tpm2_unseal_trusted()
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:48:18AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 03:16:32AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Unseal and load operations should be done as an atomic unit. This
> > commit fixes the issue by moving TPM mutex handling to tpm_try_get_ops()
> > and tpm_put_ops(), which is probably more logical place for it anyway.
>
> No..
>
> 'get_ops' is to be used to hold a persisent kref to a single tpm. It
> cannot block other tpm access.
>
> Eg a upper protocol might get_ops to for a long period to ensure it
> consistently talks to the same TPM in a multi-tpm system.
>
> We need something else to solve whatever you are concerned with
> here..
The only use cases I see at the moment for it work this way:
1. Call tpm_try_get_ops.
2. Send a TPM command.
3. Call tpm_put_ops.
I did not find any other form of use. The only use is to make sure that
there are no transactions running before the ops are cleared. Or did I
overlook something perhaps?
Trusted key unseal operation with TPM2 is broken into two operations:
1. Load the given key blob.
2. Unseal the data.
Without locking and unlocking mutex only once there is a race condition.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists