linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/2 v2] tpm: cmd_ready command can be issued only after granting locality

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9421AB87@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Feb 2018 12:46:20 +0000
From:   "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        "Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2 v2] tpm: cmd_ready command can be issued only after
 granting locality


> 
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 09:26:15PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:53PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/tpm.h b/include/linux/tpm.h index
> > > > > > bcdd3790e94d..06639fb6ab85 100644
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/tpm.h
> > > > > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ struct tpm_class_ops {
> > > > > >  	bool (*update_timeouts)(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > > > >  				unsigned long *timeout_cap);
> > > > > >  	int (*request_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc);
> > > > > > -	void (*relinquish_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc);
> > > > > > +	int (*relinquish_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc);
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems wrong.. What is the core code supposed to do if
> > > > > relinquish
> > > fails?
> > > >
> > > > Not much just propage the error to the caller and leave the policy
> > > > decision to it.
> > >
> > > Your patch set must either cover this or keep it as void.
> >
> >
> > How the code is covering other failures in the transmit functions, how
> > is this one different from for example request_locality failure?
> > Why we should not propage this error up?
> >
> > >
> > > A better idea is to print an error to klog.
> > We can do that in addition.
> 
> I guess you are right. This can be propagated to the user space so that it
> knows that there is problem. To make the root more visible the klog
> message would make sense.

Thanks, will add an error message.
Tomas