linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: turn on TPM before calling tpm_get

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: <20191112211423.vgtervfk52txgfmm@cantor>
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:14:23 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Bundy <christianbundy@...ction.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: turn on TPM before calling tpm_get_timeouts

On Tue Nov 12 19, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:31:09PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:28 PM Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:26 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:23:33PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:03 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
>> > > > <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 04:34:18PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>> > > > > > With power gating moved out of the tpm_transmit code we need
>> > > > > > to power on the TPM prior to calling tpm_get_timeouts.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
>> > > > > > Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
>> > > > > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
>> > > > > > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> > > > > > Cc: linux-stable@...r.kernel.org
>> > > > > > Fixes: a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()")
>> > > > > > Reported-by: Christian Bundy <christianbundy@...ction.io>
>> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
>> > > > > >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 ++-
>> > > > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>> > > > > > index 270f43acbb77..cb101cec8f8b 100644
>> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>> > > > > > @@ -974,13 +974,14 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
>> > > > > >                * to make sure it works. May as well use that command to set the
>> > > > > >                * proper timeouts for the driver.
>> > > > > >                */
>> > > > > > +             tpm_chip_start(chip);
>> > > > > >               if (tpm_get_timeouts(chip)) {
>> > > > > >                       dev_err(dev, "Could not get TPM timeouts and durations\n");
>> > > > > >                       rc = -ENODEV;
>> > > > > > +                     tpm_stop_chip(chip);
>> > > > > >                       goto out_err;
>> > > > > >               }
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Couldn't this call just be removed?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > /Jarkko
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Probably. It will eventually get called when tpm_chip_register
>> > > > happens. I don't know what the reason was for trying it prior to the
>> > > > irq probe.
>> > >
>> > > At least tis once needed the timeouts before registration because it
>> > > was issuing TPM commands to complete its setup.
>> > >
>> > > If timeouts have not been set then no TPM command should be executed.
>> >
>> > Would it function with the timeout values set at the beginning of
>> > tpm_tis_core_init (max values)?
>>
>> I guess that doesn't set the duration values though
>
>There is no reason to use anything but the correct timeouts, as read
>from the device.
>
>Jason
>

Should there be a check in tpm1_get_timeouts and tpm2_get_timeouts:

	if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_HAVE_TIMEOUTS)
		return 0;

to skip going through it again in the auto startup code if it was
already called and set?