linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: Detach page allocation from 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: <20191006233221.GA15594@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 02:32:21 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        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 v3 2/2] tpm: Detach page allocation from tpm_buf

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:24:34AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Fri Oct 04 19, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 13:37 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 09:37 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 21:51 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > As has been seen recently, binding the buffer allocation and
> > > > > tpm_buf
> > > > > together is sometimes far from optimal.
> > > >
> > > > Can you elaborate on this a bit more?  I must have missed the
> > > > discussion.
> > > 
> > > Refer to e13cd21ffd50 ("tpm: Wrap the buffer from the caller to
> > > tpm_buf in tpm_send()") for the details.
> > 
> > Yes, I get that, but to my mind that calls for moving the
> > tpm_init/destroy_buf into the callers of tpm_send (which, for the most
> > part, already exist), which means there's no need to separate the buf
> > and data lifetimes.
> > 
> > James
> > 
> 
> Sumit has been working on a patchset that does this.  His patchset
> converts both the asymmetric keys and trusted keys code to using the
> tpm_buf manipulation functions.

And it is also in a shape that it can soon be merged (within
few iterations at most).

/Jarkko