linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 15/19] tpm, tpm_tis: Address positive localities in tpm_tis_request

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: <Z8qbGZwi0yFyus0J@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:07:05 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	ardb@...nel.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
	James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, peterhuewe@....de,
	jgg@...pe.ca, luto@...capital.net, nivedita@...m.mit.edu,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net, corbet@....net,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com,
	andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 15/19] tpm, tpm_tis: Address positive localities in
 tpm_tis_request_locality()

On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:42:12AM -0800, Ross Philipson wrote:
> From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>
> 
> Validate that the input locality is within the correct range, as specified
> by TCG standards, and increase the locality count also for the positive
> localities.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> index c58f360fb4a4..c86100ad743a 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -234,10 +234,13 @@ static int tpm_tis_request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
>  	struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> +	if (l < 0 || l > TPM_MAX_LOCALITY)
> +		return -EINVAL;

I would mind if we put do dev_warn() here because it is unexpected
condition or even perhaps dev_err(). Or am I missing something?

> +
>  	mutex_lock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
>  	if (priv->locality_count == 0)
>  		ret = __tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, l);
> -	if (!ret)
> +	if (ret >= 0)
>  		priv->locality_count++;
>  	mutex_unlock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
>  	return ret;
> -- 
> 2.39.3
> 

I agree with this now.

BR, Jarkko