linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 06/11] security: keys: trusted: Verify creation data

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: <Y3Fr//gNYls25Ug3@sol.localdomain>
Date:   Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:13:19 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, gwendal@...omium.org,
        dianders@...omium.org, apronin@...omium.org,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ben Boeckel <me@...boeckel.net>,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, dlunev@...gle.com,
        zohar@...ux.ibm.com, Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@...ora.tech>,
        jarkko@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, axelj <axelj@...s.com>,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/11] security: keys: trusted: Verify creation data

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 03:16:31PM -0800, Evan Green wrote:
> security: keys: trusted: Verify creation data
>
> If a loaded key contains creation data, ask the TPM to verify that
> creation data. This allows users like encrypted hibernate to know that
> the loaded and parsed creation data has not been tampered with.

I don't understand what the purpose of this is.

I thought that the way to "seal" a key to a TPM PCR is to include the PCR in the
"policy".

Are you doing that too?  What is the purpose of using the "creation data"?

> +	/* Auth */
> +	tpm_buf_append_u32(&buf, 9);
> +	tpm_buf_append_u32(&buf, TPM2_RS_PW);
> +	tpm_buf_append_u16(&buf, 0);
> +	tpm_buf_append_u8(&buf, 0);
> +	tpm_buf_append_u16(&buf, 0);

This is struct tpm2_null_auth_area, so this is another place that could take
advantage of a new helper function to append it.

> +	/* Creation data hash */
> +	if (payload->creation_hash_len < 2) {
> +		rc = -EINVAL;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	tpm_buf_append_u16(&buf, payload->creation_hash_len - 2);
> +	tpm_buf_append(&buf, payload->creation_hash + 2,
> +		       payload->creation_hash_len - 2);

So the first two bytes of creation_hash are a redundant length field that needs
to be ignored here?  Perhaps tpm2_key_encode() shouldn't include that redundant
length field?

> +
> +	/* signature scheme */
> +	tpm_buf_append_u16(&buf, TPM_ALG_NULL);
> +
> +	/* creation ticket */
> +	tpm_buf_append(&buf, payload->tk, payload->tk_len);
> +
> +	rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, &buf, 6, "certifying creation data");
> +	if (rc)
> +		goto out;

This is another instance of the bug where a positive TPM2_RC_* code is being
returned from a function that is supposed to return a negative errno value.

- Eric