linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fix failure of integration IMA with tpm_crb

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: <aEg6Bgh8TqzK5nSu@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 16:58:30 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
Cc: sudeep.holla@....com, peterhuewe@....de, jgg@...pe.ca,
	stuart.yoder@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fix failure of integration IMA with tpm_crb_ffa

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 02:18:29PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
>   module_ffa_driver(tpm_crb_ffa_driver);

Oops, I missed this statement. Sorry, my bad.

> 
> >
> > >   0000000000000a9c l  .initcall6.init>  ffa_init
> > >
> > > In this situation, the IMA subsystem fails to integrate with the TPM device
> > > because the TPM was not available at the time ima_init() was called.
> > > As a result, you may see the following message in the kernel log:
> > >
> > >   | ima: No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass!
> >
> > TPM initializes before IMA, so there should not be a problem.
> 
> If you see my commit message it describes the situation why this happen.
> when crb_acpi_driver_init() is called but before tpm_crb_ffa_init() is
> called, the secure partition doesn't probe. so crb_acpi_driver_init()
> would be failed wiith -EPROBE.

What is "secure partition" and why it doesn't probe at the time of
crb_acpi_driver_init()?

> 
> In this situation, init_ima() which call ima_init() can be called first.
> NOTE, init_ima() is deployed in late_initcall and
> the "deferred_probe device" is tried again in
> deferred_probe late initcall.
> However, even the deferred_probe can be call later then init_ima().
> 
> 000000000000012c l       .initcall7.init>-------0000000000000000 init_ima
> 000000000000016c l       .initcall7.init>-------0000000000000000 deferred_probe_initcall7
> 
> That's why init_ima() is failed to init with TPM when It is deffered.
> 
> Would you let me know why you said it's not a problem?

What has deferred_probe_initcall has to do with this? Not actually
asking just pointing out stuff that you should open up.

> 
> --
> Sincerely,
> Yeoreum Yun

BR, Jarkko