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: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:39:59 +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 Sun Feb 25, 2024 at 1:23 PM EET, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 2/23/24 07:58, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 3:58 AM EET, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> >>> Just adding here that I wish we also had a log transcript of bug, which
> >>> is right now missing. The explanation believable enough to move forward
> >>> but I still wish to see a log transcript.
> >>
> >> That will be forth coming.
> > 
> > I did not respond yet to other responses that you've given in the past
> > 12'ish hours or so (just woke up) but I started to think how all this
> > great and useful information would be best kept in memory. Some of it
> > has been discussed in the past but there is lot of small details that
> > are too easily forgotten.
> > 
> > I'd think the best "documentation" approach here would be inject the
> > spec references to the sites where locality behaviour is changed so
> > that it is easy in future cross-reference them, and least of risk
> > of having code changes that would break anything. I think this way
> > all the information that you provided is best preserved for the
> > future.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for great and informative responses!
>
> No problem at all.
>
> Here is a serial output[1] from a dynamic launch using Linux Secure 
> Launch v7[2] with one additional patch[3] to dump TPM driver state.

But are this fixes for a kernel tree with [2] applied.

If the bugs do not occur in the mainline tree without the out-of-tree
feature, they are not bug fixes. They should then really be part of that
series.

BR, Jarkko