lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] tpm: Actually fail on TPM errors during "get random"
From
Date
On 4/3/19 1:52 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 07:13:52PM +0000, 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 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 mask positive TPM errors into -EIO,
>>>>> as before.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 18.092103] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (379) occurred attempting get
>>> random
>>>>> [ 18.092106] usercopy: Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from
>>> SLUB object 'kmalloc-64' (offset 0, size 379)!
>>>>>
>>>>> Link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650989
>>>>> Reported-by: Phil Baker <baker1tex@gmail.com>
>>>>> Reported-by: Craig Robson <craig@zhatt.com>
>>>>> Fixes: 7aee9c52d7ac ("tpm: tpm1: rewrite tpm1_get_random() using
>>>>> tpm_buf structure")
>>>>> Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v3: fix never-succeed, limit checks to tpm cmd return (James, Jason)
>>>>> v2: also fix tpm2 implementation (Jason Gunthorpe)
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c
>>>>> b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c index 85dcf2654d11..faacbe1ffa1a
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c
>>>>> @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ struct tpm1_get_random_out {
>>>>> *
>>>>> * Return:
>>>>> * * number of bytes read
>>>>> - * * -errno or a TPM return code otherwise
>>>>> + * * -errno (positive TPM return codes are masked to -EIO)
>>>>> */
>>>>> int tpm1_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *dest, size_t max) {
>>>>> @@ -531,8 +531,11 @@ int tpm1_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8
>>>>> *dest, size_t max)
>>>>>
>>>>> rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, &buf, sizeof(out->rng_data_len),
>>>>> "attempting get random");
>>>>> - if (rc)
>>>>> + if (rc) {
>>>>> + if (rc > 0)
>>>>> + rc = -EIO;
>>>>> goto out;
>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> out = (struct tpm1_get_random_out
>>> *)&buf.data[TPM_HEADER_SIZE];
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>>>> b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c index e74c5b7b64bf..8ffa6af61580
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>>>> @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ struct tpm2_get_random_out {
>>>>> *
>>>>> * Return:
>>>>> * size of the buffer on success,
>>>>> - * -errno otherwise
>>>>> + * -errno otherwise ((positive TPM return codes are masked to -EIO)
>>>>> */
>>>>> int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *dest, size_t max) {
>>>>> @@ -328,8 +328,11 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8
>>> *dest, size_t max)
>>>>> offsetof(struct tpm2_get_random_out,
>>>>> buffer),
>>>>> "attempting get random");
>>>>> - if (err)
>>>>> + if (err) {
>>>>> + if (err > 0)
>>>>> + err = -EIO;
>>>>> goto out;
>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> out = (struct tpm2_get_random_out *)
>>>>> &buf.data[TPM_HEADER_SIZE];
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kees Cook
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> Applied to my master branch. Jason, Tomas, do you want me to add reviewed-
>>> by's?
>> Sure, it fixes my patch.
>
> 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 the tree.

Thanks,
Laura

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-28 21:03    [W:0.068 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site