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: <20181204231848.GA1233@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:18:48 -0800
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Cc:     zohar@...ux.ibm.com, david.safford@...com, monty.wiseman@...com,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] tpm: dynamically allocate the allocated_banks
 array

On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 09:21:32AM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> tpm2_get_pcr_allocation() determines if a PCR bank is allocated by checking
> the mask in the TPML_PCR_SELECTION structure returned by the TPM for
> TPM2_Get_Capability(). One PCR bank with algorithm set to SHA1 is always
> allocated for TPM 1.x.

...

> +		for (j = 0; j < pcr_selection.size_of_select; j++)
> +			if (pcr_selection.pcr_select[j])
> +				break;
> +
> +		if (j < pcr_selection.size_of_select) {
> +			chip->allocated_banks[nr_alloc_banks] = hash_alg;
> +			nr_alloc_banks++;
> +		}
> +

Why was this needed? Can CAP_PCRS return completely unallocated banks?

Kind of out-of-context for the rest of the changes.

Should this be a bug fix of its own because it looks like as this is a
bug fix for existing code, and not a new feature? Just asking because
I don't yet fully understand this change.

Anyway, I believe that you can streamline this by:

/* Check that at least some of the PCRs have been allocated. This is
 * required because CAP_PCRS ...
 */
if (memchr_inv(pcr_selection.pcr_select, 0, pcr_selection.size_of_select))
	nr_allocated_banks++;

[yeah, comment would be awesome about CAP_PCRS. Did not finish up the
comment because I don't know the answer]

In addition, it would be consistent to call the local variable also
nr_allocated_banks (not nr_alloc_banks).

/Jarkko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ