[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9193bc05-8222-f0d6-9ad8-a2a7eaf1a34c@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 18:56:33 +0100
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.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>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] tpm: dynamically allocate the allocated_banks
array
On 12/5/2018 12:18 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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?
This was discussed for patch v4 1/6:
---
Nayna wrote:
# /usr/local/bin/tssgetcapability -cap 5
2 PCR selections
hash TPM_ALG_SHA1
TPMS_PCR_SELECTION length 3
ff ff ff
hash TPM_ALG_SHA256
TPMS_PCR_SELECTION length 3
00 00 00
The pcr_select fields - "ff ff ff" and "00 00 00" - are bit masks for
the enabled PCRs. The SHA1 bank is enabled for all PCRs (0-23), while
the SHA256 bank is not enabled.
---
> 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.
If we store in tpm_chip the possible banks, IMA would calculate more
digests unnecessarily. But this problem does not happen without my patch
set, because tpm_pcr_extend() only accepts a SHA1 digest.
> 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).
Unfortunately, I exceed the limit of characters per line.
Roberto
> /Jarkko
>
--
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063
Managing Director: Bo PENG, Jian LI, Yanli SHI
Powered by blists - more mailing lists