Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] tpm: Actually fail on TPM errors during "get random" | From | Laura Abbott <> | Date | Tue, 28 May 2019 15:02:49 -0400 |
| |
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
| |