linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] tpm: robust stack allocations

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: <aNNKAIbzki-a121p@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 04:31:44 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	"open list:KEYS/KEYRINGS" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:SECURITY SUBSYSTEM" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] tpm: robust stack allocations

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 08:07:41PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 1. These are previous changes to tpm_buf, which make stack allocations
>    much more feasible than previously.
> 2. Migrate low-hanging fruit to use stack allocations.
> 3. Re-orchestrate tpm_get_random().
> 
> Jarkko Sakkinen (3):
>   tpm: Make TPM buffer allocations more robust
>   tpm: Use TPM_MIN_BUF_SIZE in driver commands
>   tpm orchestrate tpm_get_random() in the function

I'm quite soon sending v12 because I randomly noticed a resource
over-cosumption bug. which could be theoretically triggered e.g.
via interposing a bus or a faulty device: tpm2_get_pcr_allocation()
does not have a hard limit for the number of PCR banks.

The fix:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jarkko/linux-tpmdd.git/commit/?h=tpm-buf&id=3d92f14c204d09babadaa0b7c7a82c40d11696d0

It does a bit of extra (out of scope) grouping those related
constants but I'd like to keep it that way (should not cause
much harm in the context of merge conflicts).

BR, Jarkko