Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:07:02 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm: add vendor flag to command code validation | From | Julien Gomes <> |
| |
On 2023-02-09 4:49 p.m., Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 11:58:36AM -0800, Julien Gomes wrote: >> Some TPM 2.0 devices have support for additional commands which are not >> part of the TPM 2.0 specifications. >> These commands are identified with bit 29 of the 32 bits command codes. >> Contrarily to other fields of the TPMA_CC spec structure used to list >> available commands, the Vendor flag also has to be present in the >> command code itself (TPM_CC) when called. >> >> Add this flag to tpm_find_cc() mask to prevent blocking vendor command >> codes that can actually be supported by the underlying TPM device. >> >> Signed-off-by: Julien Gomes <julien@arista.com> >> --- >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 4 +++- >> include/linux/tpm.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c >> index 65d03867e114..93545be190a5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c >> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c >> @@ -777,10 +777,12 @@ int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip) >> >> int tpm2_find_cc(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cc) >> { >> + u32 cc_mask; >> int i; >> >> + cc_mask = 1 << TPM2_CC_ATTR_VENDOR | GENMASK(15, 0); >> for (i = 0; i < chip->nr_commands; i++) >> - if (cc == (chip->cc_attrs_tbl[i] & GENMASK(15, 0))) >> + if (cc == (chip->cc_attrs_tbl[i] & cc_mask)) >> return i; >> >> return -1; >> diff --git a/include/linux/tpm.h b/include/linux/tpm.h >> index dfeb25a0362d..4dc97b9f65fb 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/tpm.h >> +++ b/include/linux/tpm.h >> @@ -265,6 +265,7 @@ enum tpm2_startup_types { >> enum tpm2_cc_attrs { >> TPM2_CC_ATTR_CHANDLES = 25, >> TPM2_CC_ATTR_RHANDLE = 28, >> + TPM2_CC_ATTR_VENDOR = 29, >> }; >> >> #define TPM_VID_INTEL 0x8086 >> -- >> 2.39.1 >> > > Just checking: did you run testing/selftests/tpm2? > > BR, Jarkko
I didn't know about these, good call. Just ran the three test suites on a vm with a swtpm, as I don't have a physical box with TPM 2.0 able to run latest kernels handy, all passed.
-- Julien Gomes
| |