linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] tsm: Runtime measurement registers ABI

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: <527da630-4952-4b1d-80c0-5a87997ff9fd@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 13:08:54 -0800
From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>,
 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
 Dan Middleton <dan.middleton@...ux.intel.com>,
 Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...osinc.com>
Cc: Qinkun Bao <qinkun@...gle.com>, "Yao, Jiewen" <jiewen.yao@...el.com>,
 Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>, biao.lu@...el.com,
 linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] tsm: Runtime measurement registers ABI


On 2/7/24 12:16 PM, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> On 2/6/2024 6:02 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> James Bottomley wrote:
>>> There isn't really anything more complex about an interface that takes
>>> a log entry, and does the record an extend, than an interface which
>>> takes a PCR extension value.  So best practice would say that you
>>> should create the ABI that you can't get wrong (log and record) rather
>>> than creating one that causes additional problems for userspace.
>>
>> Agree, there's no need for the kernel to leave deliberately pointy edges
>> for userspace to trip over.
>>
>> Cedric, almost every time we, kernel community, build an interface where
>> userspace says "trust us, we know what we are doing" it inevitably
>> results later in "whoops, turns out it would have helped if the kernel
>> enforced structure here". So the log ABI adds that structure for the
>> primary use cases.
>
> Dan, I agree with your statement generally. But with the precedent of TPM module not maintaining a log, I just wonder if the addition of log would cause problems or force more changes to existing usages than necessary. For example, IMA has its own log and if changed to use RTMR, how would those 2 logs interoperate? We would also need to decide on a log format that can accommodate all applications.


IIUC, CC event logging in firmware uses TCG2 format. Since IMA internally uses TPM calls, I assume it also uses the TCG2 format. I think we can follow the same format for RTMR extension.

I am wondering where will the event log be stored? Is it in the log_area region of CCEL table?

-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer