| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170208131643.yb6ceb7tigxtu3b3@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:16:43 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Ashley Lai <ashleydlai@...il.com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: ibmvtpm: simplify crq initialization and document
crq format
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 03:17:34PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
> The crq is passed in registers so is the same on BE and LE hosts.
's/ so// ' ?
> However, current implementation allocates a structure on-stack to
> represent the crq, initializes the members swapping them to BE, and
> loads the structure swapping it from BE. This is pointless and causes
> GCC warnings about ununitialized members. Get rid of the structure and
> the warnings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>
> ---
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c
> index 946025a7413b..b6402b1b76fe 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c
> @@ -39,18 +39,58 @@ static struct vio_device_id tpm_ibmvtpm_device_table[] = {
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(vio, tpm_ibmvtpm_device_table);
>
> /**
> + *
> + * ibmvtpm_send_crq_word - Send a CRQ request
> + * @vdev: vio device struct
> + * @w1: pre-constructed first word of tmp crq (second word is reserved)
> + *
> + * Return value:
> + * 0 - Success
> + * Non-zero - Failure
> + */
> +static int ibmvtpm_send_crq_word(struct vio_dev *vdev, u64 w1)
> +{
> + return plpar_hcall_norets(H_SEND_CRQ, vdev->unit_address, w1, 0);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + *
> * ibmvtpm_send_crq - Send a CRQ request
> * @vdev: vio device struct
> - * @w1: first word
> - * @w2: second word
> + *
> + * The ibmvtpm crq is defined as follows:
> + *
> + * Byte | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
> + * -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> + * Word0 | Valid | Type | Length | Data
> + * -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> + * Word1 | Reserved
> + * -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> + *
> + * Which matches the following structure (on bigendian host):
> + *
> + * struct ibmvtpm_crq {
> + * u8 valid;
> + * u8 msg;
> + * __be16 len;
> + * __be32 data;
> + * __be64 reserved;
> + * } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
> + *
> + * However, the value is passed in a register so just compute the numeric value
> + * to load into the registar avoiding byteswap altogether. Endian only affects
> + * memory loads and stores - registers are internally represented the same.
> *
> * Return value:
> - * 0 -Sucess
> + * 0 (H_SUCCESS) - Success
> * Non-zero - Failure
hould be "Return:" [1]
[1] http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt
> */
> -static int ibmvtpm_send_crq(struct vio_dev *vdev, u64 w1, u64 w2)
> +static int ibmvtpm_send_crq(struct vio_dev *vdev,
> + u8 valid, u8 msg, u16 len, u32 data)
> {
> - return plpar_hcall_norets(H_SEND_CRQ, vdev->unit_address, w1, w2);
> + u64 w1 = ((u64)valid << 56) | ((u64)msg << 48) | ((u64)len << 32) |
> + (u64)data;
> + return ibmvtpm_send_crq_word(vdev, w1);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -106,8 +146,6 @@ static int tpm_ibmvtpm_recv(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
> static int tpm_ibmvtpm_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
> {
> struct ibmvtpm_dev *ibmvtpm = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> - struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
> - __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
> int rc, sig;
>
> if (!ibmvtpm->rtce_buf) {
> @@ -134,10 +172,6 @@ static int tpm_ibmvtpm_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
> spin_lock(&ibmvtpm->rtce_lock);
> ibmvtpm->res_len = 0;
> memcpy((void *)ibmvtpm->rtce_buf, (void *)buf, count);
> - crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
> - crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
> - crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
> - crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>
> /*
> * set the processing flag before the Hcall, since we may get the
> @@ -145,8 +179,9 @@ static int tpm_ibmvtpm_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
> */
> ibmvtpm->tpm_processing_cmd = true;
>
> - rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
> - be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
> + rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev,
> + IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD, VTPM_TPM_COMMAND,
> + count, ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
> if (rc != H_SUCCESS) {
> dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev, "tpm_ibmvtpm_send failed rc=%d\n", rc);
> rc = 0;
> @@ -178,15 +213,10 @@ static u8 tpm_ibmvtpm_status(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> */
> static int ibmvtpm_crq_get_rtce_size(struct ibmvtpm_dev *ibmvtpm)
> {
> - struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
> - u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
> int rc;
>
> - crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
> - crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_GET_RTCE_BUFFER_SIZE;
> -
> - rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
> - cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
> + rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev,
> + IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD, VTPM_GET_RTCE_BUFFER_SIZE, 0, 0);
> if (rc != H_SUCCESS)
> dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev,
> "ibmvtpm_crq_get_rtce_size failed rc=%d\n", rc);
> @@ -205,15 +235,10 @@ static int ibmvtpm_crq_get_rtce_size(struct ibmvtpm_dev *ibmvtpm)
> */
> static int ibmvtpm_crq_get_version(struct ibmvtpm_dev *ibmvtpm)
> {
> - struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
> - u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
> int rc;
>
> - crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
> - crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_GET_VERSION;
> -
> - rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
> - cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
> + rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev,
> + IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD, VTPM_GET_VERSION, 0, 0);
> if (rc != H_SUCCESS)
> dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev,
> "ibmvtpm_crq_get_version failed rc=%d\n", rc);
> @@ -233,7 +258,7 @@ static int ibmvtpm_crq_send_init_complete(struct ibmvtpm_dev *ibmvtpm)
> {
> int rc;
>
> - rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, INIT_CRQ_COMP_CMD, 0);
> + rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq_word(ibmvtpm->vdev, INIT_CRQ_COMP_CMD);
> if (rc != H_SUCCESS)
> dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev,
> "ibmvtpm_crq_send_init_complete failed rc=%d\n", rc);
> @@ -253,7 +278,7 @@ static int ibmvtpm_crq_send_init(struct ibmvtpm_dev *ibmvtpm)
> {
> int rc;
>
> - rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, INIT_CRQ_CMD, 0);
> + rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq_word(ibmvtpm->vdev, INIT_CRQ_CMD);
> if (rc != H_SUCCESS)
> dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev,
> "ibmvtpm_crq_send_init failed rc=%d\n", rc);
> @@ -332,15 +357,10 @@ static int tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> struct ibmvtpm_dev *ibmvtpm = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> - struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
> - u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
> int rc = 0;
>
> - crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
> - crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
> -
> - rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
> - cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
> + rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev,
> + IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD, VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND, 0, 0);
> if (rc != H_SUCCESS)
> dev_err(ibmvtpm->dev,
> "tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend failed rc=%d\n", rc);
> --
> 2.10.2
>
Otherwise, I do not see any issues but can somebody test this? I cannot
and I rather not merge it before it is peer tested.
Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists