linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] KEYS: trusted: Reserve TPM for seal and unseal operations

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Oct 2020 05:39:27 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
        Alexey Klimov <aklimov@...hat.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SECURITY SUBSYSTEM" 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] KEYS: trusted: Reserve TPM for seal and unseal
 operations

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:58:04PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-10-13 at 03:28 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/tpm.h b/include/linux/tpm.h
> > index 8f4ff39f51e7..f0ebce14d2f8 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/tpm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/tpm.h
> > @@ -397,6 +397,10 @@ static inline u32 tpm2_rc_value(u32 rc)
> >  #if defined(CONFIG_TCG_TPM) || defined(CONFIG_TCG_TPM_MODULE)
> >  
> >  extern int tpm_is_tpm2(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> > +extern __must_check int tpm_try_get_ops(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> > +extern void tpm_put_ops(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> > +extern ssize_t tpm_transmit_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct
> > tpm_buf *buf,
> > +				size_t min_rsp_body_length, const char
> > *desc);
> >  extern int tpm_pcr_read(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 pcr_idx,
> >  			struct tpm_digest *digest);
> >  extern int tpm_pcr_extend(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 pcr_idx,
> > @@ -410,7 +414,18 @@ static inline int tpm_is_tpm2(struct tpm_chip
> > *chip)
> >  {
> >  	return -ENODEV;
> >  }
> > -
> > +static inline int tpm_try_get_ops(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> > +{
> > +	return -ENODEV;
> > +}
> > +static inline void tpm_put_ops(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +static inline ssize_t tpm_transmit_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct
> > tpm_buf *buf,
> > +				       size_t min_rsp_body_length,
> > const char *desc)
> > +{
> > +	return -ENODEV;
> > +}
> >  static inline int tpm_pcr_read(struct tpm_chip *chip, int pcr_idx,
> 
> I don't think we want this, do we?  That's only for API access which
> should be available when the TPM isn't selected.  Given that get/put
> are TPM critical operations, they should only appear when inside code
> where the TPM has already been selected.  If they appear outside TPM
> selected code, I think we want the compile to fail, which is why we
> don't want these backup definitions.
> 
> James

OK, I'll change it.

Thanks.

/Jarkko