[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191003113313.GD8933@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:33:13 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Detach page allocation from tpm_buf
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 02:32:11PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:40:24AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 16:12 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:46:35PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 04:48:41PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > - tpm_buf_reset(&buf, TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS, TPM2_CC_GET_RANDOM);
> > > > > + tpm_buf_reset(&buf, data_ptr, PAGE_SIZE,
> > > > > + TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS, TPM2_CC_PCR_EXTEND);
> > > >
> > > > Oops.
> > >
> > > Maybe we could use random as the probe for TPM version since we anyway
> > > send a TPM command as a probe for TPM version:
> > >
> > > 1. Try TPM2 get random.
> > > 2. If fail, try TPM1 get random.
> > > 3. Output random number to klog.
> > >
> > > Something like 8 bytes would be sufficient. This would make sure that
> > > no new change breaks tpm_get_random() and also this would give some
> > > feedback that TPM is at least somewhat working.
> >
> > That involves sending 2 TPM commands. At what point does this occur?
> > On registration? Whenever getting a random number? Is the result
> > cached in chip->flags?
>
> On registeration. It is just printed to klog.
>
> > Will this delay the TPM initialization, causing IMA to go into "TPM
> > bypass mode"?
>
> Of course it will delay the init.
>
> As I've stated before the real fix for the bypass issue would be
> to make TPM as part of the core but this has not received much
> appeal. I think I've sent patch for this once.
It has been like that people reject a fix to a race condition and
then I get complains on adding minor latency to the init because
of the existing race. It is ridicilous, really.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists