From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
gwendal@chromium.org, apronin@chromium.org,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@aurora.tech>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
zohar@linux.ibm.com, dlunev@google.com,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
Ben Boeckel <me@benboeckel.net>,
jarkko@kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] PM: hibernate: Verify the digest encryption key
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 12:00:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202211041156.3D184961EE@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221103105558.v4.10.I504d456c7a94ef1aaa7a2c63775ce9690c3ad7ab@changeid>
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:01:18AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> We want to ensure that the key used to encrypt the digest was created by
> the kernel during hibernation. To do this we request that the TPM
> include information about the value of PCR 23 at the time of key
> creation in the sealed blob. On resume, we can make sure that the PCR
> information in the creation data blob (already certified by the TPM to
> be accurate) corresponds to the expected value. Since only
> the kernel can touch PCR 23, if an attacker generates a key themselves
> the value of PCR 23 will have been different, allowing us to reject the
> key and boot normally instead of resuming.
>
> Co-developed-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>
>
> ---
> Matthew's original version of this patch is here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pm/patch/20210220013255.1083202-9-matthewgarrett@google.com/
>
> I moved the TPM2_CC_CERTIFYCREATION code into a separate change in the
> trusted key code because the blob_handle was being flushed and was no
> longer valid for use in CC_CERTIFYCREATION after the key was loaded. As
> an added benefit of moving the certification into the trusted keys code,
> we can drop the other patch from the original series that squirrelled
> the blob_handle away.
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Local variable reordering (Jarkko)
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Changed funky tag to Co-developed-by (Kees). Matthew, holler if you
> want something different.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Fixed some sparse warnings
> - Use CRYPTO_LIB_SHA256 to get rid of sha256_data() (Eric)
> - Adjusted offsets due to new ASN.1 format, and added a creation data
> length check.
>
> kernel/power/snapenc.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/power/snapenc.c b/kernel/power/snapenc.c
> index 50167a37c5bf23..2f421061498246 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/snapenc.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/snapenc.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ static struct tpm_digest known_digest = { .alg_id = TPM_ALG_SHA256,
> 0xf1, 0x22, 0x38, 0x6c, 0x33, 0xb1, 0x14, 0xb7, 0xec, 0x05,
> 0x5f, 0x49}};
>
> +/* sha256(sha256(empty_pcr | known_digest)) */
> +static const char expected_digest[] = {0x2f, 0x96, 0xf2, 0x1b, 0x70, 0xa9, 0xe8,
> + 0x42, 0x25, 0x8e, 0x66, 0x07, 0xbe, 0xbc, 0xe3, 0x1f, 0x2c, 0x84, 0x4a,
> + 0x3f, 0x85, 0x17, 0x31, 0x47, 0x9a, 0xa5, 0x53, 0xbb, 0x23, 0x0c, 0x32,
> + 0xf3};
> +
> /* Derive a key from the kernel and user keys for data encryption. */
> static int snapshot_use_user_key(struct snapshot_data *data)
> {
> @@ -486,7 +492,7 @@ static int snapshot_setup_encryption_common(struct snapshot_data *data)
> static int snapshot_create_kernel_key(struct snapshot_data *data)
> {
> /* Create a key sealed by the SRK. */
> - char *keyinfo = "new\t32\tkeyhandle=0x81000000";
> + char *keyinfo = "new\t32\tkeyhandle=0x81000000\tcreationpcrs=0x00800000";
> const struct cred *cred = current_cred();
> struct tpm_digest *digests = NULL;
> struct key *key = NULL;
> @@ -613,6 +619,8 @@ static int snapshot_load_kernel_key(struct snapshot_data *data,
>
> char *keytemplate = "load\t%s\tkeyhandle=0x81000000";
> const struct cred *cred = current_cred();
> + struct trusted_key_payload *payload;
> + char certhash[SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE];
> struct tpm_digest *digests = NULL;
> char *blobstring = NULL;
> struct key *key = NULL;
> @@ -635,8 +643,10 @@ static int snapshot_load_kernel_key(struct snapshot_data *data,
>
> digests = kcalloc(chip->nr_allocated_banks, sizeof(struct tpm_digest),
> GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!digests)
> + if (!digests) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> goto out;
> + }
>
> for (i = 0; i < chip->nr_allocated_banks; i++) {
> digests[i].alg_id = chip->allocated_banks[i].alg_id;
> @@ -676,6 +686,59 @@ static int snapshot_load_kernel_key(struct snapshot_data *data,
> if (ret != 0)
> goto out;
>
> + /* Verify the creation hash matches the creation data. */
> + payload = key->payload.data[0];
> + if (!payload->creation || !payload->creation_hash ||
> + (payload->creation_len < 3) ||
Later accesses are reaching into indexes, 6, 8, 12, 14, etc. Shouldn't
this test be:
(payload->creation_len < 14 + SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE) ||
> + (payload->creation_hash_len < SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + sha256(payload->creation + 2, payload->creation_len - 2, certhash);
Why +2 offset?
> + if (memcmp(payload->creation_hash + 2, certhash, SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE) != 0) {
And if this is +2 also, shouldn't the earlier test be:
(payload->creation_hash_len - 2 != SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE)) {
?
> + if (be32_to_cpu(*(__be32 *)&payload->creation[2]) != 1) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&payload->creation[6]) != TPM_ALG_SHA256) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (*(char *)&payload->creation[8] != 3) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* PCR 23 selected */
> + if (be32_to_cpu(*(__be32 *)&payload->creation[8]) != 0x03000080) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&payload->creation[12]) !=
> + SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* Verify PCR 23 contained the expected value when the key was created. */
> + if (memcmp(&payload->creation[14], expected_digest,
> + SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE) != 0) {
These various literals (2, 6, 8, 3, 8, 0x03000080, 12, 14) should be
explicit #defines so their purpose/meaning is more clear.
I can guess at it, but better to avoid the guessing. :)
> +
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> data->key = key;
> key = NULL;
>
> --
> 2.38.1.431.g37b22c650d-goog
>
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-04 19:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-03 18:01 [PATCH v4 00/11] Encrypted Hibernation Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 01/11] tpm: Add support for in-kernel resetting of PCRs Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 02/11] tpm: Export and rename tpm2_find_and_validate_cc() Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:25 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-07 11:37 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 03/11] tpm: Allow PCR 23 to be restricted to kernel-only use Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:27 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-07 11:39 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-07 18:15 ` Evan Green
2022-11-11 20:04 ` Evan Green
2022-11-23 23:03 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 04/11] security: keys: trusted: Include TPM2 creation data Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:33 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-07 20:11 ` Evan Green
2022-11-10 0:29 ` Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 05/11] security: keys: trusted: Allow storage of PCR values in " Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:34 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 06/11] security: keys: trusted: Verify " Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:35 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 07/11] PM: hibernate: Add kernel-based encryption Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:38 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-10 0:29 ` Evan Green
2022-11-07 11:42 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 08/11] PM: hibernate: Use TPM-backed keys to encrypt image Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:41 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 09/11] PM: hibernate: Mix user key in encrypted hibernate Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:54 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-10 0:30 ` Evan Green
2022-11-10 16:17 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-10 18:32 ` Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 10/11] PM: hibernate: Verify the digest encryption key Evan Green
2022-11-04 19:00 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2022-11-10 0:30 ` Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 11/11] PM: hibernate: seal the encryption key with a PCR policy Evan Green
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=202211041156.3D184961EE@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=apronin@chromium.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dlunev@google.com \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=evgreen@chromium.org \
--cc=gwendal@chromium.org \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@benboeckel.net \
--cc=mgarrett@aurora.tech \
--cc=mjg59@google.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=zohar@linux.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.