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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <58d239d7-4a58-454e-808d-6fd5fc5d7856@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 10:21:45 -0800
From: ross.philipson@...cle.com
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>,
        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>, ross.philipson@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Alternative TPM patches for Trenchboot

On 11/5/24 8:24 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 01:52, <ross.philipson@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/2/24 8:22 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> This is my alternative patch set to the TPM patches included into
>>> Trenchboot series v11. I don't mind to which tree these are
>>> picked in the end. All the patches also have my sob's, so in that
>>> sense things are also cleared up.
>>>
>>> At least slmodule needs to be patched in the series given that
>>> tpm_chip_set_locality() returns zero on success.
>>>
>>> It is not really my problem but I'm also wondering how the
>>> initialization order is managed. What if e.g. IMA happens to
>>> initialize before slmodule?
>>>
>>> Cc: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>
>>> Cc: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
>>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>>>
>>> Daniel P. Smith (2):
>>>     tpm, tpm_tis: Close all localities
>>>     tpm, tpm_tis: Address positive localities in
>>>       tpm_tis_request_locality()
>>>
>>> Ross Philipson (2):
>>>     tpm, tpm_tis: allow to set locality to a different value
>>>     tpm: sysfs: Show locality used by kernel
>>>
>>>    drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c     | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>    drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c    | 10 ++++++++++
>>>    drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>>>    include/linux/tpm.h             | 10 ++++++++++
>>>    4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Jarkko,
>>
>> We have tested with this latest RFC patch set and it does what we need.
>> Things also functioned correctly when we closed down the TXT DRTM and
>> brought up a follow on kernel with kexec. So we are good with dropping
>> our TPM patches and adopting these. The last question is do you want to
>> take these in directly as a standalone patch set or do you want us to
>> submit them with our next patch set (v12)?
>>
>> And for what it is worth if you want it:
>>
>> Tested-by: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
>>
> 
> If the patches as proposed work for you, please incorporate them into your v12.

Ok will do, thanks.
Ross