lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: FW: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command validation fails
Apologies for the slow response. I didn't get switched over from
tpmdd-devel to linux-integrity till just now.

> On 11/21/2017 01:30 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:07:34AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas
>> wrote:
>>> As mentioned, I think this should be documented. I guess most
>>> people would see the in-kernel resource manager as a virtualized
>>> TPM, since the "TSS TAB and Resource Manager Specification" [0]
>>> explains the RM making an analogy with a virtual memory manager:
>>>
>>> "The Resource Manager (RM) manages the TPM context in a manner
>>> similar to a virtual memory manager. It swaps objects, sessions,
>>> and sequences in and out of the limited TPM memory as needed."
>>
>> A process in virtual memory has a different environment than code
>> running on bare metal without page table, doesn't it?
>>
>>> And even your latest LPC presentation mention that the handles in
>>> the in-kernel resource manager are virtualized [1].
>>>
>>> And I disagree that it does not matter, since the same spec
>>> says:
>>>
>>> "This layer is mostly transparent to the upper layers of the TSS
>>> and is not required."
>>>
>>> But returning -EINVAL instead of a proper TPM command response
>>> with a TPM_RC_COMMAND_CODE code makes it not transparent to the
>>> upper layer.
>>
>> *mostly*
>>
>
> Fair enough

The intent of this "mostly transparent" stuff is to convey that the RM
should be as transparent as possible while acknowledging that there are
some cases where it's not / can't be. I can't say why the original
author phrased it in this somewhat ambiguous way but I wouldn't call
this a fair interpretation. It's definitely one way to read it though.

The case in question is the RM performing a function on behalf of the
TPM: command code validation. This is a perfectly valid thing to do in
the RM though the RM should aim to behave as the TPM would if the RM
takes any action (sending a TPM response buffer with the appropriate
response code).

An additional detail is described in section 3.1 "Error Codes". There is
a mechanism to encode information about which layer in the stack
produced the response buffer. When the TPM gets a command with a command
code it doesn't support then this field will be '0' since '0' identifies
the TPM. If the RM is taking over this function it should set the field
to indicate as much.

>>> If the TPM spaces infrastructure is not compliant with the spec,
>>> then I think that should also be documented.
>>
>> TPM specification is not a formal specification AFAIK.
>>
>>>> matters less than breaking the sandbox.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry for that. It wasn't clear to me that there was a
>>> sandbox and my lack of familiarity with the code was the reason
>>> why I posted as a RFC in the first place.
>>>
>>> Do you agree with Jason's suggestion to send a synthesized TPM
>>> command in the that the command isn't supported?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>
> Ok. Thanks a lot for your feedback. I already had that patch but
> didn't want to post it before knowing your opinion, I'll drop it
> now.
>
> Philip,
>
> I think this means that we can now fix this in user-space then? That
> was in fact my first suggestion in the filed tpm2-tools issue.

We can work around quirks in the kernel RM in user space if we must
(short term?) but I'm hesitant to do so in this case. Would feel better
about a short term work-around knowing it's only going to be short term.

Philip

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-22 18:53    [W:0.085 / U:3.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site