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]

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 22:44:48 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>, "Lino Sanfilippo"
 <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>, "Alexander Steffen"
 <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.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 Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 3:56 AM EET, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 2/20/24 15:54, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 20.02.24 19:42, Alexander Steffen wrote:
> >> ATTENTION: This e-mail is from an external sender. Please check attachments and links before opening e.g. with mouseover.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 02.02.2024 04:08, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> >>> On 01.02.24 23:21, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 7:08 PM EET, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> >>>>> Commit 933bfc5ad213 introduced the use of a locality counter to control when a
> >>>>> locality request is allowed to be sent to the TPM. In the commit, the counter
> >>>>> is indiscriminately decremented. Thus creating a situation for an integer
> >>>>> underflow of the counter.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the sequence of events that leads to this triggering the
> >>>> underflow? This information should be represent in the commit message.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> AFAIU this is:
> >>>
> >>> 1. We start with a locality_counter of 0 and then we call tpm_tis_request_locality()
> >>> for the first time, but since a locality is (unexpectedly) already active
> >>> check_locality() and consequently __tpm_tis_request_locality() return "true".
> >>
> >> check_locality() returns true, but __tpm_tis_request_locality() returns
> >> the requested locality. Currently, this is always 0, so the check for
> >> !ret will always correctly indicate success and increment the
> >> locality_count.
> >>
> > 
> > Will the TPM TIS CORE ever (have to) request another locality than 0? Maybe the best would
> > be to hardcode TPM_ACCESS(0) and get rid of all the locality parameters that are
> > passed from one function to another.
> > But this is rather code optimization and not really required to fix the reported bug.
>
> Actually, doing so will break the TPM API. The function 
> tpm_tis_request_locality() is registered as the locality handler, 
>   int (*request_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc), in the tis 
> instance of struct tpm_class_ops{}. This is the API used by the Secure 
> Launch series to open Locality2 for the measurements it must record.

OK, based on James' earlier feedback on possibility to have kernel
specific locality and this , and some reconsideration of my position on
the topic, and reading all these great and informative responses, I
think I went too far with this :-)

>
> v/r,
> dps

BR, Jarkko