linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: override reported C and D timeouts for Atmel 3203

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:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:42:29 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:     "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
Cc:     tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: override reported C and D timeouts for Atmel
 3203

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 07:08:53PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM
> access") Atmel 3203 TPM on ThinkPad X61S (TPM firmware version 13.9) no
> longer works.
> It turns out the initialization proceeds fine until we get and start using
> chip-reported timeouts - and the chip reports C and D timeouts of zero.
> 
> Since these are clearly not long enough let's add an override for them
> to TPM TIS default values, just as we do for Atmel 3204.
> A and B timeouts are set to the same values as the chip normally reports.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>

>  static const struct tis_vendor_timeout_override vendor_timeout_overrides[] = {
> +	/* Atmel 3203 */
> +	{ 0x32031114, { (10*1000), (10*1000),
> +			(TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000), (TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000) } },
>  	/* Atmel 3204 */
>  	{ 0x32041114, { (TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000), (TIS_LONG_TIMEOUT*1000),
>  			(TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000), (TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000) } },

Can you also add a check for 0 timeouts in the core code and print a
FW_BUG :\

Jason