linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] tpm: do not ignore memblock

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: <CAMj1kXH+QE+C78n84jRUn6ACUPbO9pU_EeeTcTa-nWitCKpt-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:29:48 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leitao@...ian.org, 
	usamaarif642@...il.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, 
	ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] tpm: do not ignore memblock_reserve return value

(cc Dave)

On Sat, 14 Sept 2024 at 15:26, Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net> wrote:
>
> tpm code currently ignores a relevant failure case silently.
> Add an error to make this failure non-silent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c
> index 9c3613e6af15..b0cc2cc11d7e 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c
> @@ -61,7 +61,12 @@ int __init efi_tpm_eventlog_init(void)
>         }
>
>         tbl_size = sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_tbl->size;
> -       memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size);
> +       if (memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size)) {
> +               pr_err("TPM Event Log memblock reserve fails (0x%lx, 0x%x)\n",
> +                      efi.tpm_log, tbl_size);
> +               ret = -ENOMEM;
> +               goto out;
> +       }
>

Given the discussion in the other thread, I wonder if this should be
efi_mem_reserve() instead - might as well fix that too.

Dave?