Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Revert "tpm: pass an array of tpm_extend_digest structures to tpm_pcr_extend()" | From | Nayna <> | Date | Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:20:53 -0400 |
| |
Hi Tyler,
On 07/04/2019 03:58 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: > Hey Mimi! > > On 2019-07-04 11:46:41, Mimi Zohar wrote: >> Hi Jarkko, >> >> On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 07:48 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: >>> On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:28 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: >>>> On 7/4/2019 12:03 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 15:15 +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >>>>>> This reverts commit 0b6cf6b97b7ef1fa3c7fefab0cac897a1c4a3400 to avoid >>>>>> following crash: >>>>> Thank you. I think this the right choice for the moment. I fixed >>>>> a trivial checkpatch.pl error and added the mandatory tags. Can >>>>> you check quickly v2 (just posted)? >>>>> >>>>> I already made it available in my master and next. >>>> Could you please wait few days? I would prefer to fix this issue instead >>>> of reverting the whole patch. >>> Nayna posted a patch late yesterday titled "tpm: fixes uninitialized >>> allocated banks for IBM vtpm driver", which addresses this bug. >> Now with my review, and with Sachin Sant's and Michal Suchánek >> testing, instead of reverting this patch could you pick up Nayna's >> patch instead? > It looks to me like the revert would also fix a bug that is keeping the > eCryptfs module from loading when the TPM is in an "inactive" state: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203953 > > I just noticed that it was recently discussed here, too: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/1562244125.6165.95.camel@linux.ibm.com/T/#t > > I believe that the revert would fix it because the call to > init_digests()/tpm_get_random() would no longer be in the path of > loading ecryptfs.ko (which depends on encrypted-keys.ko, which depends > on trusted.ko). > > If the revert isn't used, we'll need a different fix for bug 203953. It > should be an easy fix but I don't want it to be forgotten.
I think if TPM is inactive/disabled, it needs to be handled during tpm_chip_register() itself. However, probably that needs more analysis and discussion. For now, in context of the trusted.ko module, it seems init_trusted() should "put_device", but continue even if init_digests() fails, that will fix the issue.
Thanks & Regards, - Nayna
| |