lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/4] ima: Use tpm_chip_find() and access TPM functions using it
From
Date
On 06/21/2018 11:25 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 04:59:55PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 06/21/2018 04:53 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 16:42 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> Rather than accessing the TPM functions using a NULL pointer, which
>>>> causes a lookup for a suitable chip every time, get a hold of a tpm_chip
>>>> and access the TPM functions using this chip. We call the tpm_chip
>>>> ima_tpm_chip and protect it, once initialization is done, using a
>>>> rw_semaphore called ima_tpm_chip_lock.
>>>>
>>>> Use ima_shutdown to release the tpm_chip.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 3 +++
>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima_crypto.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima_queue.c | 7 +++++--
>>>> 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
>>>> index 354bb5716ce3..53a88d578ca5 100644
>>>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
>>>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/hash.h>
>>>> #include <linux/tpm.h>
>>>> #include <linux/audit.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/rwsem.h>
>>>> #include <crypto/hash_info.h>
>>>>
>>>> #include "../integrity.h"
>>>> @@ -56,6 +57,8 @@ extern int ima_policy_flag;
>>>> extern int ima_used_chip;
>>>> extern int ima_hash_algo;
>>>> extern int ima_appraise;
>>>> +extern struct rw_semaphore ima_tpm_chip_lock;
>>>> +extern struct tpm_chip *ima_tpm_chip;
>>> ima_add_templatE_entry() synchronizes appending a measurement to the
>>> measurement list and extending the TPM by taking a lock.  Do we really
>>> need to introduce another lock?
>> This lock protects the ima_tpm_chip from going from != NULL to NULL in the
>> ima_shutdown function. Basically, a global pointer accessed by concurrent
>> threads should be protected if its value can change. However, in this case
>> ima_shutdown would be called so late that there shouldn't be concurrency
>> anymore. Though, I found it better to protect it. Maybe someone else has an
>> opinion?
> Why have a shutdown block? There is no harm in holding a kref if the
> machine is shutting down.

Looking around at other drivers' usage of the reboot notifier, I find
other drivers as well that use spinlocks or mutexes during the shutdown.
Besides that, we do have the shutdown block already when device_shutdown
calls tpm_class_shutdown() and we get the ops_sem.

    Stefan
>
> Jason
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-22 13:41    [W:0.707 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site