linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] efi: expose TPM event log to userspace via sysfs

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: <CAC_iWj+zbs2tq_nMASDX6pgCAP23+PpctJFiu9=mgOVDz8Trzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:54:26 +0300
From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@...aro.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>, 
	linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: expose TPM event log to userspace via sysfs

Hi James

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 at 16:38, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-04-22 at 16:32 +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 at 16:08, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@...aro.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 08:42:41AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2024-04-22 at 14:27 +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> > > > > Userspace needs to know if TPM kernel drivers need to be loaded
> > > > > and related services started early in the boot if TPM device
> > > > > is used and available.
> > > >
> > > > This says what but not why.  We already have module autoloading
> > > > that works correctly for TPM devices, so why is this needed?
> > > >
> > > > We do have a chicken and egg problem with IMA in that the TPM
> > > > driver needs to be present *before* any filesystem, including the
> > > > one the TPM modules would be on, is mounted so executions can be
> > > > measured into IMA (meaning that if you use IMA the TPM drivers
> > > > must be built in) but this sounds to be something different.
> > > > However, because of the IMA problem, most distributions don't end
> > > > up compiling TPM drivers as modules anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Is what you want simply that tpm modules be loaded earlier?
> > >
> > > Yes, ealier is the problem. In my specific testing case the machine
> > > is qemu arm64 with swtpm with EFI firmware for secure boot and TPM
> > > support.
> > >
> > > Firmware uses TPM and does measurements and thus TPM event log is
> > > available on this machine and a bunch of other arm64 boards.
> > > Visible in early boot dmesg as TPMEventLog lines like:
> > >
> > > [    0.000000] efi: ESRT=0xf0ea5040 TPMFinalLog=0xf0ea9040
> > > RTPROP=0xf0ea7040 SMBIOS=0xf0ea3000 TPMEventLog=0xeb3b3040
> > > INITRD=0xeb3b2040 RNG=0xe5c0f040 MEMRESERVE=0xe5c0e040
> > >
> > > Different boards use different TPM HW and drivers so compiling all
> > > these in is possible but a bit ugly. systemd recently gained
> > > support for a specific tpm2.target which makes TPM support modular
> > > and also works with kernel modules for some TPM use cases but not
> > > rootfs encryption.
> > >
> > > In my test case we have a kernel+initramfs uki binary which is
> > > loaded by EFI firmware as a secure boot binary. TPM support on
> > > various boards is visible in devicetree but not as ACPI table
> > > entries. systemd currently detect TPM2 support either via ACPI
> > > table /sys/firmware/acpi/tables/TPM2 or TPM entry or via firmware
> > > measurement via /sys/kernel/security/tpm0/binary_bios_measurements
> > > .
> >
> > One corner case worth noting here is that scanning the device tree
> > won't always work for non-ACPI systems... The reason is that a
> > firmware TPM (running in OP-TEE) might or might not have a DT entry,
> > since OP-TEE can discover the device dynamically and doesn't always
> > rely on a DT entry.
> >
> > I don't particularly love the idea that an EventLog existence
> > automatically means a TPM will be there, but it seems that systemd
> > already relies on that and it does solve the problem we have.
>
> Well, quite. That's why the question I was interested in, perhaps not
> asked as clearly as it could be is: since all the TPM devices rely on
> discovery mechanisms like ACPI or DT or the like which are ready quite
> early, should we simply be auto loading the TPM drivers earlier?

This would be an elegant way to solve this and on top of that, we have
a single discovery mechanism from userspace -- e.g ls /dev/tpmX.
But to answer that we need more feedback from systemd. What 'earlier'
means? Autload it from the kernel before we go into launching the
initrd?

Thanks
/Ilias
> James
>