linux-kernel - Re: question about setting TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ in tpm_tis_core

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: <20191115191449.qnqgos4nli3tjsdw@cantor>
Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:14:49 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: question about setting TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ in tpm_tis_core_init

On Tue Nov 12 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 08:28:57AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> I set this flag for the TIS because it wasn't set anywhere else.
>> tpm_tis_send() wouldn't set the flag but go via the path:
>>
>> if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ) || priv->irq_tested)
>>
>>         return tpm_tis_send_main(chip, buf, len);
>
>Wondering why this isn't just "if (priv->irq_tested)"? Isn't that the
>whole point. The tail is the test part e.g. should be executed when
>IRQ testing is done.
>
>/Jarkko
>

I wonder if it would make sense to rename tpm_tis_send_main to tpm_tis_send,
move the irq testing bits from the current tpm_tis_send to tpm_tis_gen_interrupt,
and have tpm_tis_gen_interrupt build its own tpmbufs to send via tpm_tis_send
for the testing. Have all the irq testing bits are off on their own and separated out
from sending commands.