linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] tmp, tmp_tis: Implement usage counter for locality

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: <570976c3-8292-092d-5e0c-25eef63f7f3c@kunbus.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 19:36:19 +0200
From:   Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>
To:     Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc:     peterhuewe@....de, jgg@...pe.ca, stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux@...ewoehner.de, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lukas@...ner.de,
        p.rosenberger@...bus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] tmp, tmp_tis: Implement usage counter for
 locality



On 04.07.22 19:45, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01.07.22 01:29, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
>>
>> I'm kind of thinking that should tpm_tis_data have a lock for its
>> contents?
> 
> Most of the tpm_tis_data structure elements are set once during init and
> then never changed but only read. So no need for locking for these. The
> exceptions I see are
> 
> - flags
> - locality_count
> - locality
> 
> 
> whereby "flags" is accessed by atomic bit manipulating functions and thus
> does not need extra locking. "locality_count" is protected by the locality_count_mutex.
> "locality" is only set in check_locality() which is called from tpm_tis_request_locality_locked()
> which holds the locality_count_mutex. So check_locality() is also protected by the locality_count_mutex
> (which for this reason should probably rather be called locality_mutex since it protects both the "locality_count"
> and the "locality" variable).
> 
> There is one other place check_locality() is called from, namely the interrupt handler. This is also the only
> place in which "locality" could be assigned another value than 0 (aka the default). In this case there
> is no lock, so this could indeed by racy.
> 
> The solution I see for this is:
> 1. remove the entire loop that checks for the current locality, i.e. this code:
> 
> 	if (interrupt & TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT)
> 		for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
> 			if (check_locality(chip, i))
> 				break;
> 
> So we avoid "locality" from being changed to something that is not the default.
> 
> 

I wonder if we need tpm_tis_data->locality at all: the claimed locality is already tracked in
chip->locality and in TPM TIS we never use anything else than locality 0 so it never changes.

Is there any good reason not to remove it?



Regards,
Lino