[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170122144950.gjm63hjnyqu72hfy@intel.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 16:49:50 +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 12:38:56PM -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?
>
> It looks like there's another problem: you need a continue after the
> transient object is garbage collected otherwise the code falls through,
> does a flush which fails and then adds a ~0 as the handle meaning we'll
> have a mismatch between the saved contexts and the handles.
>
> James
Oops, my bad. It's now fixed. Thank you!
/Jarkko
>
> ---
>
> commit 0da3f83ce889379bd1741a11b07a30818a223924
> Author: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> Date: Sat Jan 21 12:19:06 2017 -0800
>
> continue after lazy reclaim
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-space.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-space.c
> index 8713d7f..9d87537 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-space.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-space.c
> @@ -288,9 +288,10 @@ static int tpm2_save_space(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> rc = tpm2_save_context(chip, space->context_tbl[i],
> space->context_buf, PAGE_SIZE,
> &offset);
> - if (rc == -ENOENT)
> + if (rc == -ENOENT) {
> space->context_tbl[i] = 0;
> - else if (rc) {
> + continue;
> + } else if (rc) {
> tpm2_flush_space(chip);
> return rc;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists