[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CUHG1TB7IELF.PVXOXEXBGEPP@suppilovahvero>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2023 22:09:58 +0300
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Daniil Stas" <daniil.stas@...teo.net>,
"Mario Limonciello" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, <Jason@...c4.com>,
<linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<regressions@...mhuis.info>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tpm: disable hwrng for fTPM on some AMD designs
On Tue Aug 1, 2023 at 9:42 PM EEST, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 at 11:28, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I would disable it inside tpm_crb driver, which is the driver used
> > for fTPM's: they are identified by MSFT0101 ACPI identifier.
> >
> > I think the right scope is still AMD because we don't have such
> > regressions with Intel fTPM.
>
> I'm ok with that.
>
> > I.e. I would move the helper I created inside tpm_crb driver, and
> > a new flag, let's say "TPM_CHIP_FLAG_HWRNG_DISABLED", which tpm_crb
> > sets before calling tpm_chip_register().
> >
> > Finally, tpm_add_hwrng() needs the following invariant:
> >
> > if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_HWRNG_DISABLED)
> > return 0;
> >
> > How does this sound? I can refine this quickly from my first trial.
>
> Sounds fine.
Mario, it would be good if you could send a fix candidate but take my
suggestion for a new TPM chip flag into account, while doing it. Please
send it as a separate patch, not attachment to this thread.
I can test and ack it, if it looks reasonable.
> My only worry comes from my ignorance: do these fTPM devices *always*
> end up being enumerated through CRB, or do they potentially look
> "normal enough" that you can actually end up using them even without
> having that CRB driver loaded?
I know that QEMU has TPM passthrough but I don't know how it behaves
exactly.
> Put another way: is the CRB driver the _only_ way they are visible, or
> could some people hit on this through the TPM TIS interface if they
> have CRB disabled?
I'm not aware of such implementations.
> I see, for example, that qemu ends up emulating the TIS layer, and it
> might end up forwarding the TPM requests to something that is natively
> CRB?
>
> But again: I don't know enough about CRB vs TIS, so the above may be a
> stupid question.
>
> Linus
I would focus exactly what is known not to work and disable exactly
that.
If someone still wants to enable TPM on such hardware, we can later
on add a kernel command-line flag to enforce hwrng. This ofc based
on user feedback, not something I would add right now.
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists