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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:24:23 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v5 3/3] tpm: add securityfs support for TPM 2.0 firmware event log On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 09:51:03PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 11/24/2016 04:10 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:27:37PM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > Unlike the device driver support for TPM 1.2, the TPM 2.0 does > > > not support the securityfs pseudo files for displaying the > > > firmware event log. > > > > > > This patch enables support for providing the TPM 2.0 event log in > > > binary form. TPM 2.0 event log supports a crypto agile format that > > > records multiple digests, which is different from TPM 1.2. This > > > patch enables the tpm_bios_log_setup for TPM 2.0 and adds the > > > event log parser which understand the TPM 2.0 crypto agile format. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > > I don't want to say much about this before I've tested it. I wonder > > what cheap hardware I could use to test this. Any advice is on this > > from anyone is much appreciated. > > Virtual hardware would be cheap :-) > > I tested this series with QEMU + vTPM + SeaBIOS with TPM 1.2 + TPM 2 support > (basing the log on ACPI). I had to fix an endianess issue on the SeaBIOS > side, which made it work. So for this version of the patches I can give it > my tested-by: > > Tested-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Your Tested-by is much appreciated because the 4.10 release cycle has shown how important it is to exercise code changes with tpm_vtpm_proxy to catch all the regressions. I still would like to run these changes with a real hardware to be able to trust them, though. /Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists