linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm: add support for partial reads

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: <e8c17a40-7e5e-61e9-7088-32817766b614@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:05:02 -0700
From:   Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     jgg@...pe.ca, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: add support for partial reads

On 07/19/2018 11:47 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 10:54 -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
>> On 07/19/2018 10:19 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> That's just an implementation, though, what's the use case?
>>
>> Hi James,
>> The use case is described in the TCTI spec [1] in the
>> "3.2.5.2 receive" section.
> 
> Well, yes, but I think we've all agreed that the /dev/tpm and
> /dev/tpmrmX aren't TCTI interfaces, although you can layer TCTI on top
> of them, so why not simply do fragmentation on top if you need it?
> 
> The reason for not doing it in the interface is that it alters the ABI.
>  Before this patch we had a hard packet boundary: one packet per read,
> one per write and a -EFAULT if you fail to provide a correctly sized
> buffer.  Now if you provide a buffer too small but don't know about the
> fragmentation you're going to misprocess a packet (because you think
> you got a whole reply but you didn't) and then you get a -EBUSY on your
> next command which you don't know how to handle.  The only way out is
> to update the applications to handle the new behaviour, which is a no-
> no in Linux ABI terms.

Don't all the existing applications that read a response in one go
do a 4K read now? So nothing will change for them. They will work
exactly the same with this change as they do without it.
This doesn't break the ABI.

> 
> It might be possible to layer the behaviour you want compatibly into
> the current device structure (say an ioctl to switch to the fragment
> behaviour) but I've got to ask why we'd go to the complexity without a
> use case?

New IOCTL would add extra complexity, which isn't necessary.

Thanks,
-- 
Tadeusz