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]

Message-ID: <94a91afd-5a6c-c909-fde9-73dd52af5435@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:23:19 +0100
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        flihp <flihp@...bit.us>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        "Tricca, Philip B" <philip.b.tricca@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.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 11/26/2017 03:18 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:16:25AM -0800, flihp wrote:
>> The intent of this "mostly transparent" stuff is to convey that the RM
>> should be as transparent as possible while acknowledging that there are
>> some cases where it's not / can't be. I can't say why the original
>> author phrased it in this somewhat ambiguous way but I wouldn't call
>> this a fair interpretation. It's definitely one way to read it though.
>>
>> The case in question is the RM performing a function on behalf of the
>> TPM: command code validation. This is a perfectly valid thing to do in
>> the RM though the RM should aim to behave as the TPM would if the RM
>> takes any action (sending a TPM response buffer with the appropriate
>> response code).
>>
>> An additional detail is described in section 3.1 "Error Codes". There is
>> a mechanism to encode information about which layer in the stack
>> produced the response buffer. When the TPM gets a command with a command
>> code it doesn't support then this field will be '0' since '0' identifies
>> the TPM. If the RM is taking over this function it should set the field
>> to indicate as much.
> 
> Thanks for explaining this. I guess we could take this direction. I think
> by utilizing the field that you mentioned we could consider this. And it
> would be hard to imagine this change to cause anything serious (if
> anything at all) with backwards compatbility.
> 
> Javier, does you current version use this field? If not can you resend
> an update?
>

My current version wasn't setting the error level bits. I'll send a new
version that does this.

I'll also drop the RFC prefix and propose it as a formal patch since it
seems we are getting closer to an agreement and also add James as cc.
 
> /Jarkko
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement
Red Hat