From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 599F1FAD419 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 05:55:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=a3dS48PLB83mBefSz5WjAymOJisiIDOcVdZLH5UL2U8=; b=ub9H1VW91uLrKjx2RSrmiXFm9m x5sPog+DOdBtWBBDkI6wm8357pwi3FV35S3iwl9e7iQWnUl32zDhJYwer3dMVZSy6GyunJPt0ibhn RMVG6+u5SYsV2XEhGjzTE4iKPpnzcZasslz+ytFkouzFh5e1DfklGYTNoAQ2d0ccED6eNPKIatoJx I5XuxQd5t7sYXLIOXej+uMm4StXld/l5dw9ZbrDH2kkbFcZhk+i2dDFb1RKeBDiCptwoY1celdS6j akJQpN7BVFlmNA9lVolp8f9YMVa4I8i96YB8b8fcP4HvQlaVrylsOxR8az3OxO9jtCpVkDusGkYpm Q9kzVZNg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wFn2B-0000000B5RS-2Rji; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 05:55:31 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wFn28-0000000B5R3-0xeF for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 05:55:29 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB2A2681; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 22:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e129823.arm.com (e129823.arm.com [10.1.197.6]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C79C3F23F; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 22:55:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1776923726; bh=49YekNFCjF8JEjH2R7KLyZgzeM9KBzyRw9umwpY5wno=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YMwCU1OmjkG75bpTZVQuyXEv+f4HLPb9bRAn2pjvQ9kw2YzQDju4CYyXPmYvBybhE gbCqRhvP14892fryqkg2Ucclu7RBSq5XmJNP01l6SwxTMh0vgsZ/ELTCtt37gwG1Jh EAZD5CRL5UEc458d04LQazuWqsSE11yOLPSn8Lmw= Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 06:55:21 +0100 From: Yeoreum Yun To: Mimi Zohar Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, paul@paul-moore.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, roberto.sassu@huawei.com, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, eric.snowberg@oracle.com, jarkko@kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, sudeep.holla@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, noodles@meta.com, sebastianene@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] security: ima: call ima_init() again at late_initcall_sync for defered TPM Message-ID: References: <20260422162449.1814615-1-yeoreum.yun@arm.com> <20260422162449.1814615-2-yeoreum.yun@arm.com> <6919248bdc85dac60277fa9d9c83d8bd258ca635.camel@linux.ibm.com> <82803bb3b471898a77084c449b73c7f7b4eb2149.camel@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <82803bb3b471898a77084c449b73c7f7b4eb2149.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260422_225528_344267_E9679AC7 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 41.97 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org > On Wed, 2026-04-22 at 20:41 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > Hi Mimi, > > > > > > > On Wed, 2026-04-22 at 17:24 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > > > To generate the boot_aggregate log in the IMA subsystem with TPM PCR values, > > > > > the TPM driver must be built as built-in and > > > > > must be probed before the IMA subsystem is initialized. > > > > > > > > > > However, when the TPM device operates over the FF-A protocol using > > > > > the CRB interface, probing fails and returns -EPROBE_DEFER if > > > > > the tpm_crb_ffa device — an FF-A device that provides the communication > > > > > interface to the tpm_crb driver — has not yet been probed. > > > > > > > > > > To ensure the TPM device operating over the FF-A protocol with > > > > > the CRB interface is probed before IMA initialization, > > > > > the following conditions must be met: > > > > > > > > > > 1. The corresponding ffa_device must be registered, > > > > > which is done via ffa_init(). > > > > > > > > > > 2. The tpm_crb_driver must successfully probe this device via > > > > > tpm_crb_ffa_init(). > > > > > > > > > > 3. The tpm_crb driver using CRB over FF-A can then > > > > > be probed successfully. (See crb_acpi_add() and > > > > > tpm_crb_ffa_init() for reference.) > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, ffa_init(), tpm_crb_ffa_init(), and crb_acpi_driver_init() are > > > > > all registered with device_initcall, which means crb_acpi_driver_init() may > > > > > be invoked before ffa_init() and tpm_crb_ffa_init() are completed. > > > > > > > > > > When this occurs, probing the TPM device is deferred. > > > > > However, the deferred probe can happen after the IMA subsystem > > > > > has already been initialized, since IMA initialization is performed > > > > > during late_initcall, and deferred_probe_initcall() is performed > > > > > at the same level. > > > > > > > > > > To resolve this, call ima_init() again at late_inicall_sync level > > > > > so that let IMA not miss TPM PCR value when generating boot_aggregate > > > > > log though TPM device presents in the system. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun > > > > > > > > A lot of change for just detecting whether ima_init() is being called on > > > > late_initcall or late_initcall_sync(), without any explanation for all the other > > > > changes (e.g. ima_init_core). > > > > > > > > Please just limit the change to just calling ima_init() twice. > > > > > > My concern is that ima_update_policy_flags() will be called > > > when ima_init() is deferred -- not initialised anything. > > > though functionally, it might be okay however, > > > I think ima_update_policy_flags() and notifier should work after ima_init() > > > works logically. > > > > > > This change I think not much quite a lot. just wrapper ima_init() with > > > ima_init_core() with some error handling. > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > Also, if we handle in ima_init() only, but it failed with other reason, > > we shouldn't call again ima_init() in the late_initcall_sync. > > > > To handle this, It wouldn't do in the ima_init() but we need to handle > > it by caller of ima_init(). > > Only tpm_default_chip() is being called to set the ima_tpm_chip. On failure, > instead of going into TPM-bypass mode, return immediately. There are no calls > to anything else. Just call ima_init() a second time. I’m not fully convinced this is sufficient. What I meant is the case where ima_init() fails due to other initialisation steps, not only tpm_default_chip() (e.g. ima_fs_init()). If it fails at the late_initcall stage for such reasons, then we should not call ima_init() again at late_initcall_sync. For this reason, instead of adding a static variable inside ima_init(), I think it would be better to manage the state in the caller and introduce something like an ima_initialised flag. Also, if initialisation fails for other reasons, the notifier block should be unregistered. I’d also like to ask again whether it is fine to call ima_update_policy_flags() and keep the notifier registered in the deferred TPM case. While this may be functionally acceptable, it seems logically questionable to do so when ima_init() has not completed. There is also a possibility that a deferred case ultimately fails (e.g. deferred at late_initcall, but then failing at late_initcall_sync for another reason, even while entering TPM bypass mode). In that case, it seems more appropriate to handle this state in the caller of ima_init(), rather than inside ima_init() itself. Am I still missing something? -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun