Re: [PATCH] Revert "tpm: pass an array of tpm_extend_digest structures to tpm_pcr_extend()"

[Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>]

Hey Mimi!

On 2019-07-04 11:46:41, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 07:48 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:28 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > On 7/4/2019 12:03 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 15:15 +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > > >> This reverts commit 0b6cf6b97b7ef1fa3c7fefab0cac897a1c4a3400 to avoid
> > > >> following crash:
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you. I think this the right choice for the moment. I fixed
> > > > a trivial checkpatch.pl error and added the mandatory tags. Can
> > > > you check quickly v2 (just posted)?
> > > > 
> > > > I already made it available in my master and next.
> > > 
> > > Could you please wait few days? I would prefer to fix this issue instead
> > > of reverting the whole patch.
> > 
> > Nayna posted a patch late yesterday titled "tpm: fixes uninitialized
> > allocated banks for IBM vtpm driver", which addresses this bug.
> 
> Now with my review, and with Sachin Sant's and Michal Suchánek
> testing, instead of reverting this patch could you pick up Nayna's
> patch instead?

It looks to me like the revert would also fix a bug that is keeping the
eCryptfs module from loading when the TPM is in an "inactive" state:

  https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203953

I just noticed that it was recently discussed here, too:

  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/1562244125.6165.95.camel@linux.ibm.com/T/#t

I believe that the revert would fix it because the call to
init_digests()/tpm_get_random() would no longer be in the path of
loading ecryptfs.ko (which depends on encrypted-keys.ko, which depends
on trusted.ko).

If the revert isn't used, we'll need a different fix for bug 203953. It
should be an easy fix but I don't want it to be forgotten.

Tyler

> 
> thanks!
> 
> Mimi
>