linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Alternative TPM patches for Trenchboot

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: <D5DCY0MCPDC2.3C6FDTRKPFU8H@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 13:29:00 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>, "Daniel P. Smith"
 <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>
Cc: <x86@...nel.org>, "Ross Philipson" <ross.philipson@...cle.com>, "Ard
 Biesheuvel" <ardb@...nel.org>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@....de>, "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>, "open
 list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, "open list"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Alternative TPM patches for Trenchboot

On Mon Nov 4, 2024 at 1:19 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > I don't categorically reject adding some code to early setup. We have
> > some shared code EFI stub but you have to explain your changes
> > proeprly. Getting rejection in some early version to some approach,
> > and being still pissed about that years forward is not really way
> > to go IMHO.
>
> ... and ignoring fixes that took me almost one day to fully get together
> is neither.
>
> These address the awful commit messages, tpm_tis-only filtering and not
> allowing repetition in the calls.

Also considering early setup: it is not part of uapi. It can be
reconsidered after the feature is landed as improvement (perhaps
also easier to project then). I don't think TPM2_PolicyLocality
potential conflict is important for kernel, and that is the only
known race I know at this point.

I don't really get the problem here. It's almost I like I should
not have mentioned potential concurrency issue in order to not
get slandered.

BR, Jarkko