From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>,
"Vitor Soares" <ivitro@gmail.com>,
"James Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
<linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
"Mimi Zohar" <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
"David Howells" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"Paul Moore" <paul@paul-moore.com>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: Disable TCG_TPM2_HMAC by default
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 18:34:03 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D1KJBXOPFWT7.1F14BWQJO29FC@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D1KIV2Q682XH.1GCPYWMFZ8B6J@kernel.org>
On Mon May 27, 2024 at 6:12 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon May 27, 2024 at 6:01 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon May 27, 2024 at 5:51 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu May 23, 2024 at 10:59 AM EEST, Vitor Soares wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 19:11 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Wed May 22, 2024 at 5:58 PM EEST, Vitor Soares wrote:
> > > > > > I did run with ftrace, but need some more time to go through it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here the step I did:
> > > > > > kernel config:
> > > > > > CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER
> > > > > > CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ftrace:
> > > > > > # set filters
> > > > > > echo tpm* > set_ftrace_filter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # set tracer
> > > > > > echo function_graph > current_tracer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # take the sample
> > > > > > echo 1 > tracing_on; time modprobe tpm_tis_spi; echo 0 > tracing_on
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > Vitor Soares
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm now compiling distro kernel (OpenSUSE) for NUC7 with v6.10 contents.
> > > > >
> > > > > After I have that setup, I'll develop a perf test either with perf or
> > > > > bpftrace. I'll come back with the possible CONFIG_* that should be in
> > > > > place in your kernel. Might take up until next week as I have some
> > > > > conference stuff to prepare but I try to have stuff ready early next
> > > > > week.
> > > > >
> > > > > No need to rush with this as long as possible patches go to rc2 or rc3.
> > > > > Let's do a proper analysis instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime you could check if you get perf and/or bpftrace to
> > > > > your image that use to boot up your device. Preferably both but
> > > > > please inform about this.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I already have perf running, for the bpftrace I might not be able to help.
> > >
> > > The interesting function to look at with/without hmac is probably
> > > tpm2_get_random().
> > >
> > > I attached a patch that removes hmac shenigans out of tpm2_get_random()
> > > for the sake of proper comparative testing.
> >
> > Other thing that we need to measure is to split the cost into
> > two parts:
> >
> > 1. Handshake, i.e. setting up and shutdowning a session.
> > 2. Transaction, payload TPM command.
> >
> > This could be done by setting up couple of kprobes_events:
> >
> > payload_event: tpm2_get_random() etc.
> > hmac_event: tpm2_start_auth_session(), tpm2_end_auth_session() etc.
> >
> > And just summing up the time for a boot to get a cost for hmac.
> >
> > I'd use bootconfig for this:
> >
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.9/trace/boottime-trace.html
> >
> > So I've made up plans how measure the incident but not sure when I
> > have time to pro-actively work on a benchmark (thus sharing details).
> >
> > So I think with just proper bootconfig wtih no other tools uses this
> > can be measured.
>
>
> I'll disable this for anything else than X86_64 by default, and put
> such patch to my next pull request.
>
> Someone needs to do the perf analysis properly based on the above
> descriptions. I cannot commit my time to promise them to get the
> perf regressions fixed by time. I can only commit on limiting the
> feature ;-)
>
> It is thus better be conservative and reconsider opt-in post 6.10.
> X86_64 is safeplay because even in that 2018 NUC7 based on Celeron,
> hmac is just fine.
While looking at code I started to wanted what was the reasoning
for adding *undocumented* "TPM2_OA_TMPL" in include/linux/tpm.h.
It should really be in tpm2-sessions.c and named something like
TPM2_NULL_KEY_OA or similar.
Obfuscation *on purpose* by definition... Since I see such spots (liked
e.g. tpm_buf_parameters() to name another instance) sprinkled, I've
pretty much locked in the decision to limit hmac to x86_64. It is right
thing to do given not so great maturity level.
Whatever on x86_64 I'm confident we can fix for sure any issue but
cannot make such analysis on other platforms.
BR, Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-27 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-19 23:51 [PATCH 0/3] KEYS: trusted: bug fixes Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-19 23:51 ` [PATCH 1/3] tpm: Disable TCG_TPM2_HMAC by default Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-21 7:03 ` Vitor Soares
2024-05-21 7:10 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-21 12:33 ` James Bottomley
2024-05-21 13:00 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-21 13:11 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-21 13:16 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-22 8:18 ` Vitor Soares
2024-05-22 12:01 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-22 13:17 ` Vitor Soares
2024-05-22 13:31 ` Vitor Soares
2024-05-22 14:11 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-22 14:20 ` James Bottomley
2024-05-22 14:39 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-22 13:35 ` James Bottomley
2024-05-22 14:13 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-22 14:58 ` Vitor Soares
2024-05-22 16:11 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-23 7:59 ` Vitor Soares
2024-05-27 14:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-27 15:01 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-27 15:12 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-27 15:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2024-05-27 17:57 ` James Bottomley
2024-05-27 19:53 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-27 20:01 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-27 21:36 ` James Bottomley
2024-05-27 23:17 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-27 23:44 ` James Bottomley
2024-05-28 1:04 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-28 1:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-19 23:51 ` [PATCH 2/3] KEYS: trusted: Fix memory leak in tpm2_key_encode() Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-05-19 23:51 ` [PATCH 3/3] KEYS: trusted: Do not use WARN when encode fails 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=D1KJBXOPFWT7.1F14BWQJO29FC@kernel.org \
--to=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ivitro@gmail.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--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 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).