linux-kernel - Re: FW: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command validation fails

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:   Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:13:03 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     flihp <flihp@...bit.us>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        "Tricca, Philip B" <philip.b.tricca@...el.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
Subject: Re: FW: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command
 validation fails

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:16:25AM -0800, flihp wrote:

> We can work around quirks in the kernel RM in user space if we must
> (short term?) but I'm hesitant to do so in this case. Would feel better
> about a short term work-around knowing it's only going to be short term.

Pedantically, the kernel is not implementing a RM as per some spec, it
is using the TPM features to create isolation.

Both sides can be argued. In this case, I think the patch to add a TPM
response buffer in this one case is reasonable, and does not look so
complicated that it is dangerous in the kernel.

However the kernel will continue to return errnos in various cases,
and a userspace that cannot handle them is kinda broken :)

Jason