linux-kernel - Re: Build error on -next due to tpm

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: <23c77291-7c6e-45ea-b1ad-952c01882579@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:25:50 -0500
From: Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@....com>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>, jarkko@...nel.org
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 lenb@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org, jgg@...pe.ca, peterhuewe@....de,
 sudeep.holla@....com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Build error on -next due to tpm_crb.c changes?

On 3/11/25 11:51 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 11.03.25 16:53, Stuart Yoder wrote:
>> On 3/11/25 10:21 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 05.03.25 18:36, Stuart Yoder wrote:
>> [...]
>> So, it should not be possible on one had have
>> CONFIG_TCG_ARM_CRB_FFA being true when building tpm_crb.c
>> and false resulting in the tpm_crb_ffa.o not being
>> picked up in the build.
> 
> Many thx for the answer. Maybe Fedora's way to prepare the .config files
> (which my package builds use to be close to Fedora's official packages)
> is doing something odd/wrong. Will take a closer look and report back.

I've been experimenting with some different build config combinations
and have reproduced what must be the issue.

This works fine:
<*>   TPM 2.0 CRB Interface 
                                         < >   TPM CRB over Arm FF-A 
Transport

This works fine:
< >   TPM 2.0 CRB Interface 
                                         <*>   TPM CRB over Arm FF-A 
Transport

This works fine:
<*>   TPM 2.0 CRB Interface 
                                         <*>   TPM CRB over Arm FF-A 
Transport

This works fine:
<M>   TPM 2.0 CRB Interface 
                                         <M>   TPM CRB over Arm FF-A 
Transport

This fails:
<*>   TPM 2.0 CRB Interface 
                                         <M>   TPM CRB over Arm FF-A 
Transport

The 2 drivers are coupled, so we can't have one built as a module
and the other built-in.

I'm not a Kconfig expert, and need to do some fiddling to see
if I can find a Kconfig syntax that prevents that failure scenario.

Thanks,
Stuart