linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: tpm: Remove a busy bit of the NVS area for supporting AMD's fTPM

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHjaAcQv+8ZqYwcYLj57rM9wMRvsoUczzE8uXjsTY+yxNB7vFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 19:01:50 +0900
From:   Seunghun Han <kkamagui@...il.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        "open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: tpm: Remove a busy bit of the NVS area for
 supporting AMD's fTPM

> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 06:34:37PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:36:04PM +0900, Seunghun Han wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:36:30AM +0900, Seunghun Han wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I got your point. Is there any problem if some regions which don't
> > > > > > need to be handled in NVS area are saved and restored? If there is a
> > > > > > problem, how about adding code for ignoring the regions in NVS area to
> > > > > > the nvs.c file like Jarkko said? If we add the code, we can save and
> > > > > > restore NVS area without driver's interaction.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing that knows which regions should be skipped by the NVS
> > > > > driver is the hardware specific driver, so the TPM driver needs to ask
> > > > > the NVS driver to ignore that region and grant control to the TPM
> > > > > driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Matthew and Jarkko.
> > > > It seems that the TPM driver needs to handle the specific case that
> > > > TPM regions are in the NVS. I would make a patch that removes TPM
> > > > regions from the ACPI NVS by requesting to the NVS driver soon.
> > > >
> > > > Jarkko,
> > > > I would like to get some advice on it. What do you think about
> > > > removing TPM regions from the ACPI NVS in TPM CRB driver? If you don't
> > > > mind, I would make the patch about it.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if ignoring is right call. Then the hibernation behaviour
> > > for TPM regions would break.
> > >
> > > Thus, should be "ask access" rather than "grant control".
>
> I agree with your idea. It seems to make trouble. So, I would like to
> do like your idea below.
>
> > Or "reserve access" as NVS driver does not have intelligence to do any
> > policy based decision here.
> >
> > A function that gets region and then checks if NVS driver has matching
> > one and returns true/false based on that should be good enough. Then
> > you raw ioremap() in the TPM driver.
> >
> > /Jarkko
>
> This solution is great and clear to me. I will make a new patch on
> your advice and test it in my machine. After that, I will send it
> again soon.
> I really appreciate it.
>
> Seunghun

I have made and sent patches on your advice.
The patch links are below and please review them.
[PATCH 0/2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/30/372
[PATCH 1/2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/30/373
[PATCH 2/2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/30/374

Thank you again for your sincere advice.

Seunghun