linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tpm: parse TPM event logs based on EFI table

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]

Message-ID: <CA+zpnLe8hgSgBbjw8zF=pvykNo9mkVcyR65KY=vFckKf+XMb=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:38:03 +0200
From:   Thiebaud Weksteen <tweek@...gle.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        Ashley Lai <ashleydlai@...il.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, peterhuewe@....de,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        tpmdd@...horst.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tpm: parse TPM event logs based on EFI table

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Thiebaud Weksteen <tweek@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:00:22PM +0200, Thiebaud Weksteen wrote:
>>
>> >     chip->bin_log_seqops.chip = chip;
>> > -   if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
>> > +
>> > +   if (log_version == EFI_TCG2_EVENT_LOG_FORMAT_TCG_2 ||
>> > +       (!log_version && (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)))
>> >             chip->bin_log_seqops.seqops =
>> >                     &tpm2_binary_b_measurements_seqops;
>>
>> Lets have all the read_log_* versions return the postitive log_version
>> and get rid of the chip->flags check here.
>>
>> ie Doesn't ACPI always return the TPM 1 version?
>
> That is my understanding. Ashley, Nayna, could you confirm the format
> version expected by tpm_of? Could it be both?
>

I've changed the returned code for ACPI but not for DeviceTree.
Without confirmation for tpm_of, I am reluctant to modify the current
behaviour.

>>
>> Jason