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 22:37:31 +0100
From:   "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
        Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: override reported C and D timeouts for Atmel
 3203

On 12.01.2017 21:20, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:09:33PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On 12.01.2017 19:42, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
(..)
>>> Can you also add a check for 0 timeouts in the core code and print a
>>> FW_BUG :\
>>
>> Hmm, I dug in history of tpm-interface.c and the code had actually rejected
>> zero timeouts until commit 8e54caf407b98e (this is the commit that
>> introduced the Atmel 3204 workaround) and let default timeout values remain
>> instead (it looks like they were exactly like these in above override at
>> that time).
>>
>> Did Atmel 3204 report wrong but non-zero timeouts?
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to fix this by re-adding this fallback?

I think it would be a cleaner fix and also catch other problematic
devices (if there are any) without needing to add individual overrides.

> /Jarkko

Maciej

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ