On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 03:02:49PM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > Great, I'll add it. Thank you. Just want to be explicit with these
> > things as I consider them as if I was asking a signature from someone
> > :-)
> >
> > /Jarkko
> >
> Was this intended to go in for 5.2? I still don't see it in
On 4/3/19 1:52 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 07:13:52PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 02:46:25AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:06:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
A "get random" may fail with a TPM error, but those codes
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 07:13:52PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
>
>
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 02:46:25AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:06:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > A "get random" may fail with a TPM error, but those codes were
> > > > returned as-is
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 02:46:25AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:06:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > A "get random" may fail with a TPM error, but those codes were
> > > returned as-is to the caller, which assumed the result was the
> > > number of bytes that
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 02:46:25AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:06:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > A "get random" may fail with a TPM error, but those codes were returned
> > as-is to the caller, which assumed the result was the number of bytes
> > that had been
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:06:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> A "get random" may fail with a TPM error, but those codes were returned
> as-is to the caller, which assumed the result was the number of bytes
> that had been written to the target buffer, which could lead to a kernel
> heap memory
>
> A "get random" may fail with a TPM error, but those codes were returned as-is
> to the caller, which assumed the result was the number of bytes that had been
> written to the target buffer, which could lead to a kernel heap memory
> exposure and over-read.
>
> This fixes tpm1_get_random() to
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:09 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > + * -errno otherwise ((positive TPM return codes are masked to -EIO)
>
> Extra bracket, but otherwise looks fine to me
Thanks! (And I guess it's time for lunch so I can take a break and
learn how to type again...)
--
Kees Cook
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:06:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> A "get random" may fail with a TPM error, but those codes were returned
> as-is to the caller, which assumed the result was the number of bytes
> that had been written to the target buffer, which could lead to a kernel
> heap memory
9 matches
Mail list logo
