linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] security/keys/trusted: Allow operation without hardware TPM

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: <20190325141223.GA13766@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:12:23 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Silviu Vlasceanu <Silviu.Vlasceanu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security/keys/trusted: Allow operation without hardware
 TPM

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 08:24:01AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 3:12 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 06:45:47PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > On 3/21/2019 5:30 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 7:27 AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/21/2019 2:54 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 04:45:13PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > > > > Rather than fail initialization of the trusted.ko module, arrange for
> > > > > > > the module to load, but rely on trusted_instantiate() to fail
> > > > > > > trusted-key operations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fixes: 240730437deb ("KEYS: trusted: explicitly use tpm_chip structure...")
> > > > > > > Cc: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It should check for chip in each function that uses TPM now that
> > > > > > the code does not rely on default chip. Otherwise, the semantics
> > > > > > are kind of inconsistent.
> > > > >
> > > > > If no other TPM function can be used before a successful key
> > > > > instantiate, checking for a chip only in trusted_instantiate() seems
> > > > > sufficient. Then, the same chip will be used by all TPM functions until
> > > > > module unloading, since we incremented the reference count.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would suggest to move the tpm_default_chip() and init_digests() calls
> > > > > to trusted_instantiate() to restore the old behavior of init_trusted().
> > > > >
> > > > > trusted_instantiate() should look like:
> > > > > ---
> > > > > if (!chip) {
> > > > >          chip = tpm_default_chip();
> > > > >          if (!chip)
> > > > >                  return -ENODEV;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!digests) {
> > > > >          ret = init_digests();
> > > > >          if (ret < 0)
> > > > >                  return ret;
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > This patch already achieves that because tpm_find_get_ops() will fail
> > > > and cause tpm_is_tpm2() to return NULL.
> > >
> > > In addition, the changes I proposed would allow users to create trusted
> > > keys if a TPM is added later. CONFIG_TRUSTED_KEYS=y and
> > > CONFIG_TCG_TPM=m is a valid configuration.
> > >
> > > Jarkko, Dan's patch seems sufficient to fix the issue. He could include
> > > the changes I proposed in his patch. What is your opinion?
> >
> > Agreed.
> 
> What changes?
> 
> Robert, please feel free to re-author the proposed patch however you
> see fit, I just want whatever will get libnvdimm operational again in
> the shortest amount of time.

I've decided go with a patch of least innovation i.e. one that simply reverts
the old behavior. Sending patch soon.

/Jarkko