linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tpm: tpm_crb: enhance command and response buffer size calculation code

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: <CAHjaAcRyd1bSjeD-jJkjzeSGq8gf_f=qz_=wyi1omY7-20xARw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:12:25 +0900
From:   Seunghun Han <kkamagui@...il.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
        "open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tpm: tpm_crb: enhance command and response buffer
 size calculation code

>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:09:05PM +0900, Seunghun Han wrote:
> > The purpose of crb_fixup_cmd_size() function is to work around broken
> > BIOSes and get the trustable size between the ACPI region and register.
> > When the TPM has a command buffer and response buffer independently,
> > the crb_map_io() function calls crb_fixup_cmd_size() twice to calculate
> > each buffer size.  However, the current implementation of it considers
> > one of two buffers.
> >
> > To support independent command and response buffers, I changed
> > crb_check_resource() function for storing ACPI TPB regions to a list.
> > I also changed crb_fixup_cmd_size() to use the list for calculating each
> > buffer size.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Seunghun Han <kkamagui@...il.com>
>
> I think as far as the tpm_crb goes I focus on getting Vanya's change
> landed because it is better structured, more mature and the first
> version was sent couple of weeks earlier. You are welcome to make
> your remarks on that patch.

Thank you for your review. I already knew Vanya's patch,
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/11/151, and this patch didn't work for
me. I also couldn't agree on some points like memory allocating inside
the ACPI walker and changing many parts of TPM driver. I would like to
support AMD's fTPM with the smallest changes since this is a
workaround as you know.

I didn't understand clearly what your point is. Do you want me to
change my patches structurally like Vanya's patch and make patch v3?
or want me to give some advice to Vanya?

>
> /Jarkko