On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 06:12:17PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 10:39:11AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 09:39 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:16:49AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 13:35 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -787,6 +791,20 @@ static int getoptions(char *c, struct
> > > > > trusted_key_payload *pay,
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > opt->pcrlock = lock;
> > > > > break;
> > > > > + case Opt_hash:
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < HASH_ALGO__LAST; i++) {
> > > > > + if (!strcmp(args[0].from,
> > > > > hash_algo_name[i])) {
> > > > > + opt->hash = i;
> > > > > + break;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + res = tpm_is_tpm2(TPM_ANY_NUM);
> > > >
> > > > While looking at this, I wanted to verify that chips are still added to
> > > > the tail of the tpm_chip_list. Unfortunately, commit "afb5abc tpm:
> > > > two-phase chip management functions" reverted David Howell's commit
> > > > "770ab65 TPM: Add new TPMs to the tail of the list to prevent
> > > > inadvertent change of dev".
> > > >
> > > > > + if (res < 0)
> > > > > + return res;
> > > > > + if (i == HASH_ALGO__LAST ||
> > > > > + (!res && i != HASH_ALGO_SHA1))
> > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > + break;
> > > >
> > > > If the first TPM registered is a TPM 1.2, then changing the default TPM
> > > > 2.0 hash algorithm will fail.
> > >
> > > Now that we are going fix this issue in 4.3 and 4.4 do you find this
> > > patch otherwise acceptable?
> > >
> > > PS. In other options that we don't support in TPM2 I'm planning to
> > > submit a fix that they will return -EINVAL (like pcrinfo).
> >
> > I don't have a problem failing the request, but I do suggest adding some
> > sort of error message. Different systems might behavior differently
> > without any explanation.
>
> Something like the pr_info("trusted_key: TPM 1.x supports only sha1")?
I've started to think that maybe it was a bad idea to break this into
patch set as the changes are small and they make sense only together.
What do you think? Should quash everything into single patch?
> > Mimi
/Jarkko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
