linux-kernel - Re: Getting weird TPM error after rebasing my tree to security/next-general

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]

Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 16:31:36 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        tomas.winkler@...el.com, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Getting weird TPM error after rebasing my tree to
 security/next-general

On Thu Jan 31 19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
><jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'll try it first thing when I wake up tomorrow (11PM in Finland ATM).
>
>Thanks.
>
>> Appreciate for taking time on this.
>
>Hey, it was my commit that broke it for you. Even if it happened to
>work before, and only did so by pure luck, it was a functional
>regression.
>
>I get very upset when other developers don't step up when *their*
>changes break something, and I don't consider "it shouldn't have
>worked in the first place" to be a valid excuse. You broke it, you'd
>better fix it.
>
>So I had better fix my own mess too, in order to not look too hypocritical.
>
>And I was very aware that hardcoding the memcpy_*io() access patterns
>might break something. I just _hoped_ it wouldn't, because we actually
>ended up going back to the very original access patterns (but it was
>from a long long time ago).
>
>In fact, while it's slightly annoying, in many ways it's actually good
>that we found breakage, and could pinpoint exactly *why* it broke.
>That does validate the whole "we shouldn't just depend on the random
>implementation detail of 'memcpy()'" argument.
>
>So I'll wait to hear back whether that patch fixes things for you, but
>I _think_ it will, and we'll be better off in the long range with this
>whole thing.
>
>              Linus

I just did a quick test here of booting and running a couple commands
(tpm2_getcap, tpm2_pcrlist), and the patch seems to work for me. I was
seeing the error during tpm_crb initialization without the patch.