linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: Introduce TPM_IOC_SET

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: <D5BMNT065TE5.1SV8CSW8KEG6L@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:40:31 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>, "Ard Biesheuvel"
 <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@....de>,
 "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>, <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
 <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
 <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
 <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>, <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
 <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <hpa@...or.com>,
 <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com>,
 <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <luto@...capital.net>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
 <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>, <ross.philipson@...cle.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 <trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com>, <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: Introduce TPM_IOC_SET_LOCALITY

On Sat Nov 2, 2024 at 12:38 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sat Nov 2, 2024 at 11:02 AM EET, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Same for the ioctl() [as well as the read-write sysfs node]: looking
> > at the code (patch 19/20) it doesn't seem like user space needs to be
> > able to modify this at all, at least not for the patch set as
> > presented. So for now, can we just stick with making the sysfs node
> > read-only?
>
> Short answer: I have no idea. I would not mind that but neither
> the commit message for TPM give a clue on this. Actually, I *do
> not care* if it is RO and RW but I'm neither good at guessing
> random shit.
>
> I haad to assume it was *needed* for reason that I do not know
> given that sysfs attribute was RW.

Let's put it this way: *if* write is needed this the way to do
it now and also in the future (or along the lines). Or least
harmful at least (single additional locality change per boot).

BR, Jarkko