linux-integrity.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] pm: Ensure exclusive userspace access when using /dev/tpm<n>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 21:55:50 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aPvLtt7a7X0Y1LBI@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1760958898.git.noodles@meta.com>

On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 12:30:32PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> I hit a problem where ~ 1% of TPM firmware upgrades were failing.
> Investigating revealed the issue was that although the upgrade tool uses
> /dev/tpm0 this does not actually prevent access via /dev/tpmrm0, nor
> internal kernel users. It *does* prevent access to others via /dev/tpm0
> 
> So the upgrade process started, the HW RNG came in to get some
> randomness in the middle, did the HMAC context dance, and confused
> everything to the point the TPM was no longer visible to the OS even
> after a reboot.
> 
> Thankfully I've been able to recover those devices, but really what I'd
> like is the ability for a userspace tool to exclusively access the TPM
> without something coming in behind it. Given the lightweight attempt at
> locking that already exists I think this was the original intention.
> 
> I've reworked this series based on feedback received.
> 
> Firstly, it's been reordered TPM sharing functionality doesn't break
> during bisection.
> 
> Secondly, the O_EXCL check has been tightend up to ensure the caller is
> also opening the device O_RDWR. Callers shouldn't really be opening the
> TPM except for reading + writing, but this should help guard against
> unexpected flags usage a bit more.
> 
> Finally, this revision keeps the prohibition on more than one user of
> /dev/tpm#, to avoid unexpected breakages for clients that expect this to
> guard against multiple invocations. A client only then needs to use
> O_EXCL if it wants to prevent *all* other access, even with
> ContextSaves, such as the firmware upgrade case.
> 
> (I've sent a separate standalone patch that allows the TPM HW RNG to be
> disabled at run time, and it's now in -next, but even with that I think
> something like this is a good idea as well.)
> 
> Jonathan McDowell (4):
>   tpm: Remove tpm_find_get_ops
>   tpm: Add O_EXCL for exclusive /dev/tpm access
>   tpm: Include /dev/tpmrm<n> when checking exclusive userspace TPM
>     access
>   tpm: Allow for exclusive TPM access when using /dev/tpm<n>
> 
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c       | 90 +++++++++++++++----------------
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c |  8 +--
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev.c        | 35 ++++++++++--
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev.h        |  1 +
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c  | 20 +++++--
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h            |  3 +-
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-space.c     |  5 +-
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c   |  3 +-
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpmrm-dev.c      | 20 ++++++-
>  include/linux/tpm.h               |  4 +-
>  10 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 

I will put to queue with my tags but I just want to make first sure that we do not
break anything.

I'll upgrade my test suite first to have TPM 1.2 tests (which is also
needed for my own series) and run it in bunch of configurations.  And on
TPM2 I check the behavior with TSS2 daemon on / off.

I have no doubts on the code changes, and it is most importantly a
security improvement, given that "who has the access and how long" 
can be deduced for a system configuration. I just feel that with
this code change it is better to check and verify everything :-)

BR, Jarkko

  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-10-24 18:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-02 17:26 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Re-establish ability for exclusive TPM access to userspace Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-02 17:26 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] tpm: Ensure exclusive userspace access when using /dev/tpm<n> Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-03 19:22   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-02 17:27 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] tpm: Remove tpm_find_get_ops Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-10 16:54   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-02 17:27 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] tpm: Allow for exclusive TPM access when using /dev/tpm<n> Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-10 17:04   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-02 17:27 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] tpm: Require O_EXCL for exclusive /dev/tpm access Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-10 17:06   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-23 17:09 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] Re-establish ability for exclusive TPM access to userspace Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-23 17:10   ` [PATCH v2 1/4] tpm: Ensure exclusive userspace access when using /dev/tpm<n> Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-24  1:14     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-23 17:10   ` [PATCH v2 2/4] tpm: Remove tpm_find_get_ops Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-24  1:19     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-23 17:10   ` [PATCH v2 3/4] tpm: Allow for exclusive TPM access when using /dev/tpm<n> Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-24  1:22     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-23 17:10   ` [PATCH v2 4/4] tpm: Require O_EXCL for exclusive /dev/tpm access Jonathan McDowell
2025-09-24  1:23     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-10-20 11:30   ` [PATCH v3 0/4] pm: Ensure exclusive userspace access when using /dev/tpm<n> Jonathan McDowell
2025-10-20 11:30     ` [PATCH v3 1/4] tpm: Remove tpm_find_get_ops Jonathan McDowell
2025-10-20 11:30     ` [PATCH v3 2/4] tpm: Add O_EXCL for exclusive /dev/tpm access Jonathan McDowell
2025-10-20 11:30     ` [PATCH v3 3/4] tpm: Include /dev/tpmrm<n> when checking exclusive userspace TPM access Jonathan McDowell
2025-10-20 11:31     ` [PATCH v3 4/4] tpm: Allow for exclusive TPM access when using /dev/tpm<n> Jonathan McDowell
2025-10-20 11:53       ` Roberto Sassu
2025-10-23 14:24         ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-10-27 19:38         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-10-27 20:09           ` James Bottomley
2025-10-27 20:18             ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-11-03 18:38           ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-11-09  4:34             ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-10-24 18:55     ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2025-10-27 11:50       ` [PATCH v3 0/4] pm: Ensure exclusive userspace " Mimi Zohar
2025-10-27 19:41         ` Jarkko Sakkinen

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=aPvLtt7a7X0Y1LBI@kernel.org \
    --to=jarkko@kernel.org \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=noodles@earth.li \
    --cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).