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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:28:01 -0700 From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, "# 4.0+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@...gle.com>, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Fix TPM 1.2 Shutdown sequence to prevent future TPM operations Hi, On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:26 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 02:17:26PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:04:37PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 01:39:15PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:29:19AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > > > From: Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@...gle.com> > > > > > > > > > > commit db4d8cb9c9f2af71c4d087817160d866ed572cc9 upstream. > > > > > > > > > > TPM 2.0 Shutdown involve sending TPM2_Shutdown to TPM chip and disabling > > > > > future TPM operations. TPM 1.2 behavior was different, future TPM > > > > > operations weren't disabled, causing rare issues. This patch ensures > > > > > that future TPM operations are disabled. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: d1bd4a792d39 ("tpm: Issue a TPM2_Shutdown for TPM2 devices.") > > > > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@...gle.com> > > > > > [dianders: resolved merge conflicts with mainline] > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> > > > > > This is the backport of the patch referenced above to 4.19 as was done > > > > > in Chrome OS. See <https://crrev.com/c/1495114> for details. It > > > > > presumably applies to some older kernels. NOTE that the problem > > > > > itself has existed for a long time, but continuing to backport this > > > > > exact solution to super old kernels is out of scope for me. For those > > > > > truly interested feel free to reference the past discussion [1]. > > > > > > > > > > Reason for backport: mainline has commit a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM > > > > > chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()") and commit 719b7d81f204 > > > > > ("tpm: introduce tpm_chip_start() and tpm_chip_stop()") and it didn't > > > > > seem like a good idea to backport 17 patches to avoid the conflict. > > > > > > > > Careful with this, you can't backport this to any kernels that don't > > > > have the sysfs ops locking changes or they will crash in sysfs code. > > > > > > And what commit added that? > > > > commit 2677ca98ae377517930c183248221f69f771c921 > > Author: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> > > Date: Sun Nov 4 11:38:27 2018 +0200 > > > > tpm: use tpm_try_get_ops() in tpm-sysfs.c. > > > > Use tpm_try_get_ops() in tpm-sysfs.c so that we can consider moving > > other decorations (locking, localities, power management for example) > > inside it. This direction can be of course taken only after other call > > sites for tpm_transmit() have been treated in the same way. > > > > The last sentence suggests there are other patches needed too though.. > > So 5.1. So does this original patch need to go into the 5.2 and 5.1 > kernels? The patch ("Fix TPM 1.2 Shutdown sequence to prevent future TPM operations")? It's already done. It just got merge conflicts when going back to 4.19 which is why I sent the backport. -Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists