All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Cc: Bruno Meneguele <bmeneg@redhat.com>,
	ltp@lists.linux.it, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Petr Cervinka <pcervinka@suse.com>,
	Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	Vitaly Chikunov <vt@altlinux.org>,
	Maurizio Drocco <maurizio.drocco@ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [LTP v2 1/1] ima_tpm.sh: Fix for calculating boot aggregate
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:01:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1592571711.17802.21.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200619100737.GB18704@dell5510>

On Fri, 2020-06-19 at 12:07 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> > On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 16:41 -0300, Bruno Meneguele wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:05:27PM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > > > Hi Mimi,
> ...
> > > > To sum that: my patch is required for any system without physical TPM with with
> > > > kernel with b59fda449cf0 + it also works for TPM 1.2 (regardless kernel
> > > > version), because TPM 1.2 supports sha1 only boot aggregate.
> 
> > > > But testing on kernel with b59fda449cf0 with TPM 2.0 is not only broken with
> > > > this patch, but also on current version in master, right? As you have
> > > > sha256:3fd5dc717f886ff7182526efc5edc3abb179a5aac1ab589c8ec888398233ae5 anyway.
> > > > So this patch would help at least testing on VM without vTPM.
> 
> 
> > > If we consider to delay this change until we have the ima-evm-utils
> > > released with the ima_boot_aggregate + make this test dependent on
> > > both ima-evm-utils and tsspcrread, would it be worth to SKIP the test in
> > > case a TPM2.0 sha256 bank is detected instead of FAIL? Thus we could
> > > have the test fixed for TPM1.2 && no-TPM cases until we get the full
> > > support for multiple banks?
> +1
> 
> > As long as we're dealing with the "boot_aggregate", Maurizio just
> > posted a kernel patch for including PCR 8 & 9 in the boot_aggregate.
> >  The existing IMA LTP "boot_aggregate" test is going to need to
> > support this change.
> I'm not sure if I did something wrong, but it looks to me that 'evmctl
> ima_boot_aggregate' does not provide backward compatibility with TPM 1.2.
> Or am I wrong?

Calculating the "boot_aggregate" - "evmctl ima_boot_aggregate" - for
TPM 1.2 should work.  Reading the code, it looks like it assumes that
the crypto library supports SHA1 and SHA256.  That assumption needs to
be addressed.

The tests/boot_aggregate.test logs are TPM 2.0.  The test is failing
on systems with a TPM 1.2.  I'm working on a fix for this.

Mimi

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [LTP v2 1/1] ima_tpm.sh: Fix for calculating boot aggregate
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:01:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1592571711.17802.21.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200619100737.GB18704@dell5510>

On Fri, 2020-06-19 at 12:07 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> > On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 16:41 -0300, Bruno Meneguele wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:05:27PM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > > > Hi Mimi,
> ...
> > > > To sum that: my patch is required for any system without physical TPM with with
> > > > kernel with b59fda449cf0 + it also works for TPM 1.2 (regardless kernel
> > > > version), because TPM 1.2 supports sha1 only boot aggregate.
> 
> > > > But testing on kernel with b59fda449cf0 with TPM 2.0 is not only broken with
> > > > this patch, but also on current version in master, right? As you have
> > > > sha256:3fd5dc717f886ff7182526efc5edc3abb179a5aac1ab589c8ec888398233ae5 anyway.
> > > > So this patch would help at least testing on VM without vTPM.
> 
> 
> > > If we consider to delay this change until we have the ima-evm-utils
> > > released with the ima_boot_aggregate + make this test dependent on
> > > both ima-evm-utils and tsspcrread, would it be worth to SKIP the test in
> > > case a TPM2.0 sha256 bank is detected instead of FAIL? Thus we could
> > > have the test fixed for TPM1.2 && no-TPM cases until we get the full
> > > support for multiple banks?
> +1
> 
> > As long as we're dealing with the "boot_aggregate", Maurizio just
> > posted a kernel patch for including PCR 8 & 9 in the boot_aggregate.
> > ?The existing IMA LTP "boot_aggregate" test is going to need to
> > support this change.
> I'm not sure if I did something wrong, but it looks to me that 'evmctl
> ima_boot_aggregate' does not provide backward compatibility with TPM 1.2.
> Or am I wrong?

Calculating the "boot_aggregate" - "evmctl ima_boot_aggregate" - for
TPM 1.2 should work. ?Reading the code, it looks like it assumes that
the crypto library supports SHA1 and SHA256. ?That assumption needs to
be addressed.

The tests/boot_aggregate.test logs are TPM 2.0. ?The test is failing
on systems with a TPM 1.2. ?I'm working on a fix for this.

Mimi

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-19 13:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-27  7:14 [LTP v2 1/1] ima_tpm.sh: Fix for calculating boot aggregate Petr Vorel
2020-05-27  7:14 ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2020-05-27 17:41 ` Mimi Zohar
2020-05-27 17:41   ` [LTP] " Mimi Zohar
2020-05-28 14:07   ` Petr Vorel
2020-05-28 14:07     ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2020-05-28 15:19     ` Mimi Zohar
2020-05-28 15:19       ` [LTP] " Mimi Zohar
2020-05-28 16:05       ` Petr Vorel
2020-05-28 16:05         ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2020-06-15 19:41         ` Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-15 19:41           ` [LTP] " Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-15 20:01           ` Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-15 20:01             ` [LTP] " Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-16 22:40             ` Mimi Zohar
2020-06-16 22:40               ` [LTP] " Mimi Zohar
2020-06-17 19:52               ` Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-17 19:52                 ` [LTP] " Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-19  7:46             ` Petr Vorel
2020-06-19  7:46               ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2020-06-15 20:21           ` Mimi Zohar
2020-06-15 20:21             ` [LTP] " Mimi Zohar
2020-06-17  1:21             ` Jerry Snitselaar
2020-06-17  1:21               ` [LTP] " Jerry Snitselaar
2020-06-17 20:45               ` Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-17 20:45                 ` [LTP] " Bruno Meneguele
2020-06-17 22:19                 ` Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-17 22:19                   ` [LTP] " Maurizio Drocco
2020-06-19  8:21                 ` Petr Vorel
2020-06-19  8:21                   ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2020-06-19 12:43                   ` Mimi Zohar
2020-06-19 12:43                     ` [LTP] " Mimi Zohar
2020-06-19 13:01                     ` Petr Vorel
2020-06-19 13:01                       ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2020-06-19 10:07             ` Petr Vorel
2020-06-19 10:07               ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2020-06-19 13:01               ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2020-06-19 13:01                 ` Mimi Zohar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1592571711.17802.21.camel@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=bmeneg@redhat.com \
    --cc=chrubis@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=maurizio.drocco@ibm.com \
    --cc=pcervinka@suse.com \
    --cc=pvorel@suse.cz \
    --cc=vt@altlinux.org \
    --cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.