[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b519a73-eb76-c700-69bc-17f7788cca08@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:21:59 +0100
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, <david.safford@...com>,
<monty.wiseman@...com>, <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>,
<linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
<keyrings@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<silviu.vlasceanu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 6/6] tpm: pass an array of tpm_extend_digest structures
to tpm_pcr_extend()
On 2/4/2019 1:07 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:14:38AM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
>> On 2/1/2019 8:15 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delayed review. A few comments inline below, minor
>>> suggestions.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
>>>> index cc12f3449a72..e6b2dcb0846a 100644
>>>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
>>>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
>>>> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ extern int ima_policy_flag;
>>>> extern int ima_hash_algo;
>>>> extern int ima_appraise;
>>>> extern struct tpm_chip *ima_tpm_chip;
>>>> +extern struct tpm_digest *digests;
>>>> /* IMA event related data */
>>>> struct ima_event_data {
>>>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
>>>> index 6bb42a9c5e47..296a965b11ef 100644
>>>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
>>>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>>> /* name for boot aggregate entry */
>>>> static const char boot_aggregate_name[] = "boot_aggregate";
>>>> struct tpm_chip *ima_tpm_chip;
>>>> +struct tpm_digest *digests;
>>>
>>> "digests" is used in the new ima_init_digests() and in
>>> ima_pcr_extend(). It's nice that the initialization routines are
>>> grouped together here in ima_init.c, but wouldn't it better to define
>>> "digests" in ima_queued.c, where it is currently being used?
>>> "digests" could then be defined as static.
>>
>> 'digests' and ima_init_digests() can be moved to ima_queue.c, but I have
>> to add the definition of ima_init_digests() to ima.h. Should I do it?
>>
>>
>>>> /* Add the boot aggregate to the IMA measurement list and extend
>>>> * the PCR register.
>>>> @@ -104,6 +105,24 @@ void __init ima_load_x509(void)
>>>> }
>>>> #endif
>>>> +int __init ima_init_digests(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!ima_tpm_chip)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + digests = kcalloc(ima_tpm_chip->nr_allocated_banks, sizeof(*digests),
>>>> + GFP_NOFS);
>>>> + if (!digests)
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < ima_tpm_chip->nr_allocated_banks; i++)
>>>> + digests[i].alg_id = ima_tpm_chip->allocated_banks[i].alg_id;
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> int __init ima_init(void)
>>>> {
>>>> int rc;
>>>> @@ -125,6 +144,9 @@ int __init ima_init(void)
>>>> ima_load_kexec_buffer();
>>>> + rc = ima_init_digests();
>>>
>>> Ok. Getting the tpm chip is at the beginning of this function.
>>> Deferring allocating "digests" to here, avoids having to free memory
>>> on failure.
>>>
>>> ima_load_kexec_buffer() restores prior measurements, but doesn't
>>> extend the TPM. For anyone reading the code, a short comment above
>>> ima_load_kexec_buffer() would make sense.
>>
>> Ok. Should I resend the last patch again with the fixes you suggested?
>
> Send the full patch set. For me it is easier then to apply the series
> rather than cherry-picking patches from random versions of the patch
> set.
I can include your fix in patch 4/6, if you prefer.
Roberto
> /Jarkko
>
--
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063
Managing Director: Bo PENG, Jian LI, Yanli SHI
Powered by blists - more mailing lists