linux-kernel - [PATCH] tpm_tis_spi: Don't send anything during flow control

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20200528151912.1.Id689a39ce8d1ec6f29f4287277ad977ff4f57d7d@changeid>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 15:19:30 -0700
From:   Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrey Pronin <apronin@...omium.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] tpm_tis_spi: Don't send anything during flow control

During flow control we are just reading from the TPM, yet our spi_xfer
has the tx_buf and rx_buf both non-NULL which means we're requesting a
full duplex transfer.

SPI is always somewhat of a full duplex protocol anyway and in theory
the other side shouldn't really be looking at what we're sending it
during flow control, but it's still a bit ugly to be sending some
"random" data when we shouldn't.

The default tpm_tis_spi_flow_control() tries to address this by
setting 'phy->iobuf[0] = 0'.  This partially avoids the problem of
sending "random" data, but since our tx_buf and rx_buf both point to
the same place I believe there is the potential of us sending the
TPM's previous byte back to it if we hit the retry loop.

Another flow control implementation, cr50_spi_flow_control(), doesn't
address this at all.

Let's clean this up and just make the tx_buf NULL before we call
flow_control().  Not only does this ensure that we're not sending any
"random" bytes but it also possibly could make the SPI controller
behave in a slightly more optimal way.

NOTE: no actual observed problems are fixed by this patch--it's was
just made based on code inspection.

Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
---

 drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 9 ++++-----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
index d96755935529..8d2c581a93c6 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
@@ -53,8 +53,6 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_flow_control(struct tpm_tis_spi_phy *phy,

 	if ((phy->iobuf[3] & 0x01) == 0) {
 		// handle SPI wait states
-		phy->iobuf[0] = 0;
-
 		for (i = 0; i < TPM_RETRY; i++) {
 			spi_xfer->len = 1;
 			spi_message_init(&m);
@@ -104,6 +102,8 @@ int tpm_tis_spi_transfer(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 len,
 		if (ret < 0)
 			goto exit;

+		/* Flow control transfers are receive only */
+		spi_xfer.tx_buf = NULL;
 		ret = phy->flow_control(phy, &spi_xfer);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			goto exit;
@@ -113,9 +113,8 @@ int tpm_tis_spi_transfer(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 len,
 		spi_xfer.delay.value = 5;
 		spi_xfer.delay.unit = SPI_DELAY_UNIT_USECS;

-		if (in) {
-			spi_xfer.tx_buf = NULL;
-		} else if (out) {
+		if (out) {
+			spi_xfer.tx_buf = phy->iobuf;
 			spi_xfer.rx_buf = NULL;
 			memcpy(phy->iobuf, out, transfer_len);
 			out += transfer_len;
-- 
2.27.0.rc0.183.gde8f92d652-goog