[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170122144923.ot52suf5vky3qcnp@intel.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 16:49:23 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager
via a device link /dev/tpms<n>
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:28:55AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 07:19:40AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 12:49 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:01:03AM -0500, James Bottomley
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 15:12 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > > From: James Bottomley <
> > > > > > > James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently the Resource Manager (RM) is not exposed to
> > > > > > > userspace.
> > > > > > > Make this exposure via a separate device, which can now be
> > > > > > > opened multiple times because each read/write transaction
> > > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > separately via the RM.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Concurrency is protected by the chip->tpm_mutex for each
> > > > > > > read/write transaction separately. The TPM is cleared of
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > transient objects by the time the mutex is dropped, so
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > should be no interference between the kernel and userspace.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's actually a missing kfree of context_buf on the
> > > > > > tpms_release
> > > > > > path as well. This patch fixes it up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you send me a fresh version of the whole patch so that I
> > > > > can
> > > > > include to v4 that includes also changes that I requested in my
> > > > > recent comments + all the fixes?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I think the attached is basically it
> > > >
> > > > James
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> >
> > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now on top of master
> > branch
> > that contains Stefan's latest patch (min body length check) that I've
> > reviewed and tested. It also contains your updated /dev/tpms patch.
> >
> > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are such that we have fairly
> > good consensus, don't we? If so, can I add your reviewed-by and
> > tested-by to my commits and vice versa?
>
> Did you actually test it? It doesn't work for me. The bisected fault
> commit is this one (newly introduced into the tabrm4 branch)
>
> commit 9b7f4252655228c8d0b86e1492cc7fb3feaa5686
> Author: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu Jan 19 07:19:12 2017 -0500
>
> tpm: Check size of response before accessing data
>
> The specific problem is that our min_rsp_length in
> tpm_{load,save}_context includes a header size and the check this
> introduces does the check is against the body size, meaning the load
> fails because tpm_transmit_cmd thinks the response is too short.
>
> The patch to fix this is below.
>
> James
I noticed the same thing last night. Sorry about that. It's now been
fixed. I did test it but somehow what went to my remote tree does not
have matching contents so I screwed something up at some point.
/Jarkko
>
> ---
> commit 480f2bb484f5a7e6100c6b0d1c79f72a05a0ca88
> Author: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> Date: Sat Jan 21 11:26:24 2017 -0800
>
> fix tpm_transmit_cmd min response size problem
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-space.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-space.c
> index 4b5c714..3237d7c 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-space.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-space.c
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static int tpm2_load_context(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf,
> tpm_buf_append(&tbuf, &buf[*offset], body_size);
>
> rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, NULL, tbuf.data, PAGE_SIZE,
> - TPM_HEADER_SIZE + 4, TPM_TRANSMIT_UNLOCKED, "load context");
> + 4, TPM_TRANSMIT_UNLOCKED, "load context");
> if ((rc & TPM2_RC_HANDLE) == TPM2_RC_HANDLE) {
> rc = -ENOENT;
> tpm_buf_destroy(&tbuf);
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static int tpm2_save_context(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 handle, u8 *buf,
>
> tpm_buf_append_u32(&tbuf, handle);
>
> - rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, NULL, tbuf.data, PAGE_SIZE, TPM_HEADER_SIZE,
> + rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, NULL, tbuf.data, PAGE_SIZE, 0,
> TPM_TRANSMIT_UNLOCKED, NULL);
> if (rc < 0) {
> dev_warn(&chip->dev, "%s: saving failed with a system error %d\n",
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists