linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: protect against locality counter underflow

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: <CZC0DCWSO6EW.2TWZ7DKGPZB41@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 01:49:17 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "James Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, "Lino
 Sanfilippo" <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>, "Alexander Steffen"
 <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>, "Daniel P. Smith"
 <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>, "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>, "Sasha
 Levin" <sashal@...nel.org>, <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Ross Philipson" <ross.philipson@...cle.com>, "Kanth Ghatraju"
 <kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: protect against locality counter underflow

On Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 11:06 AM EET, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 19:43 +0000, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed Feb 21, 2024 at 12:37 PM UTC, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2024-02-20 at 22:31 +0000, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> [...]
> > > >  I cannot recall out of top of my head can
> > > >    you have two localities open at same time.
> > > 
> > > I think there's a misunderstanding about what localities are:
> > > they're effectively an additional platform supplied tag to a
> > > command.  Each command can therefore have one and only one
> > > locality.  The TPM doesn't
> > 
> > Actually this was not unclear at all. I even read the chapters from
> > Ariel Segall's yesterday as a refresher.
> > 
> > I was merely asking that if TPM_ACCESS_X is not properly cleared and
> > you se TPM_ACCESS_Y where Y < X how does the hardware react as the
> > bug report is pretty open ended and not very clear of the steps
> > leading to unwanted results.
>
> So TPM_ACCESS_X is *not* a generic TPM thing, it's a TIS interface
> specific thing.  Now the TIS interface seems to be dominating, so
> perhaps it is the correct programming model for us to follow, but not
> all current TPMs adhere to it.

I know, I only have CRB based TPMs in my host machines but here the
context is TIS interface so in this scope it's what we care about.

We're trying to fix a bug here, not speculate what additional
features could be done with localities.

BR, Jarkko