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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C899C433E0 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141212077D for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:44:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="DZdoVdVX"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="DZdoVdVX" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726652AbgGUXoI (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:44:08 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:41196 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726587AbgGUXoI (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:44:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2CE18EE269; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:37:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1595374675; bh=Ib64F4A4w+gHxqSZ0NYfvh0Du0qllz9Pa1Hq8BTQh/Y=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=DZdoVdVXi7Do+OkFT8EqZblCGW/yd7q5rNy/i4CEmn/6dkVF2cq7d9CQJ2QQm7fs4 jthVuJkTYMlseTicmqPS/rRIK4ejZ6cTwNA1jPS5RWm79lcVFDVP08Urm/l6e6jQVX 5bxAcmwOLYBUU3sdn7jPAIXrzOJ9oXMfFi4O2LkY= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJF-1B9ut33X; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [153.66.254.194] (unknown [50.35.76.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BD2D8EE207; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:37:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1595374675; bh=Ib64F4A4w+gHxqSZ0NYfvh0Du0qllz9Pa1Hq8BTQh/Y=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=DZdoVdVXi7Do+OkFT8EqZblCGW/yd7q5rNy/i4CEmn/6dkVF2cq7d9CQJ2QQm7fs4 jthVuJkTYMlseTicmqPS/rRIK4ejZ6cTwNA1jPS5RWm79lcVFDVP08Urm/l6e6jQVX 5bxAcmwOLYBUU3sdn7jPAIXrzOJ9oXMfFi4O2LkY= Message-ID: <1595374674.3575.28.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] tpm: add sysfs exports for all banks of PCR registers From: James Bottomley To: Jerry Snitselaar Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar , Jarkko Sakkinen Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:37:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87a6zslar5.fsf@redhat.com> References: <20200721155615.12625-1-James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> <20200721155615.12625-2-James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> <87a6zslar5.fsf@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 16:16 -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > James Bottomley @ 2020-07-21 08:56 MST: [...] > > + /* > > + * This will only trigger if someone has added an > > additional > > + * hash to the tpm_algorithms enum without incrementing > > + * TPM_MAX_HASHES. This has to be a BUG_ON because under > > this > > + * condition, the chip->groups array will overflow > > corrupting > > + * the chips structure. > > + */ > > + BUG_ON(chip->groups_cnt > TPM_MAX_HASHES); > > Should this check be 3 + TPM_MAX_HASHES like below? No, because at this point only a single additional group has been addedin addition to the hashes groups. The first line of tpm_sysfs_add_device is WARN_ON(chip->groups_cnt != 0); And then we add the unnamed group. This loop over the banks follows it, so chip->groups_cnt should be nr_banks_allocated by the end (it's the index, which is one fewer than the number of entries in chip- >groups[]). We have a problem if nr_banks_allocated > TPM_MAX_HASHES which is what the BUG_ON checks. James