From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
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, peterhuewe@gmx.de, 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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] security: ima: move ima_init into late_initcall_sync
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:50:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aedyh61iTnQRyzMv@e129823.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a6a0e15286c983d720de227c6827adbe976c5b9b.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Hi Mimi,
> On Fri, 2026-04-17 at 18:57 +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, move ima_init() into 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 <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
>
> IMA should be initialized as early as possible. I'm really hesitant to defer
> ima_init() to late_initcall_sync() for systems that the TPM is currently
> initialized in time. For these systems, continue initializing IMA at
> late_initcall(). As a compromise for those systems that the TPM isn't properly
> initialized in time, define and instantiate the late_initcall_sync().
>
> ima_init() would need to differentiate between the late_initcall and
> late_initcall_sync. On late_initcall(), instead of saying "No TPM chip found,
> activating TPM-bypass!", it should say "No TPM chip found, deferring to
> late_initcall_sync" or something similar.
But can we really move those initialisations to be called again?
I am referring to functions such as ima_init_crypto(),
ima_add_boot_aggregate(), and ima_measure_critical_data() in ima_init()—
first without TPM, and then a second time once TPM becomes available.
I don’t think that approach would work.
In other words, unless tpm_default_chip() can differentiate between a TPM
device that is deferred and one that does not exist, we cannot distinguish
between the “defer” case and “-EEXIST”.
It might be possible if the TPM core tracked the state when a driver returns
-EPROBE_DEFER, but I am not sure that is the right approach.
For deferred probe cases, the “device initialised in time” check should
likely be done at late_initcall_sync, rather than late_initcall.
This implies that any such check performed before late_initcall_sync
does not reflect a valid state, as it cannot distinguish between “not
present” and “deferred”.
Therefore, I think the TPM check in IMA should be performed at
late_initcall_sync.
Am I missing something?
Thanks.
>
> > ---
> > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 2 ++
> > security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 2 +-
> > security/lsm_init.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> > 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > index d48bf0ad26f4..88fe105b7f00 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ enum lsm_order {
> > * @initcall_fs: LSM callback for fs_initcall setup, optional
> > * @initcall_device: LSM callback for device_initcall() setup, optional
> > * @initcall_late: LSM callback for late_initcall() setup, optional
> > + * @initcall_late_sync: LSM callback for late_initcall_sync() setup, optional
> > */
> > struct lsm_info {
> > const struct lsm_id *id;
> > @@ -181,6 +182,7 @@ struct lsm_info {
> > int (*initcall_fs)(void);
> > int (*initcall_device)(void);
> > int (*initcall_late)(void);
> > + int (*initcall_late_sync)(void);
> > };
> >
> > #define DEFINE_LSM(lsm) \
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > index 1d6229b156fb..ace280fa3212 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > @@ -1320,5 +1320,5 @@ DEFINE_LSM(ima) = {
> > .order = LSM_ORDER_LAST,
> > .blobs = &ima_blob_sizes,
> > /* Start IMA after the TPM is available */
> > - .initcall_late = init_ima,
> > + .initcall_late_sync = init_ima,
> > };
> > diff --git a/security/lsm_init.c b/security/lsm_init.c
> > index 573e2a7250c4..4e5c59beb82a 100644
> > --- a/security/lsm_init.c
> > +++ b/security/lsm_init.c
> > @@ -547,13 +547,22 @@ device_initcall(security_initcall_device);
> > * security_initcall_late - Run the LSM late initcalls
> > */
> > static int __init security_initcall_late(void)
> > +{
> > + return lsm_initcall(late);
> > +}
> > +late_initcall(security_initcall_late);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * security_initcall_late_sync - Run the LSM late initcalls sync
> > + */
> > +static int __init security_initcall_late_sync(void)
> > {
> > int rc;
> >
> > - rc = lsm_initcall(late);
> > + rc = lsm_initcall(late_sync);
> > lsm_pr_dbg("all enabled LSMs fully activated\n");
> > call_blocking_lsm_notifier(LSM_STARTED_ALL, NULL);
> >
> > return rc;
> > }
> > -late_initcall(security_initcall_late);
> > +late_initcall_sync(security_initcall_late_sync);
> > --
> > LEVI:{C3F47F37-75D8-414A-A8BA-3980EC8A46D7}
> >
--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-21 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-17 17:57 [RFC PATCH 0/4] fix FF-A call failed with pKVM when ff-a driver is built-in Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-17 17:57 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] security: ima: move ima_init into late_initcall_sync Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-20 10:32 ` Jonathan McDowell
2026-04-21 9:37 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-21 12:00 ` Mimi Zohar
2026-04-21 12:50 ` Yeoreum Yun [this message]
2026-04-21 13:26 ` Mimi Zohar
2026-04-21 14:09 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-17 17:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] tpm: tpm_crb_ffa: revert defered_probed when tpm_crb_ffa is built-in Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-17 17:57 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] firmware: arm_ffa: revert ffa_init() initcall level to device_initcall Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-17 17:57 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] firmware: arm_ffa: check pkvm initailised when initailise ffa driver Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-18 9:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-04-18 10:34 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-19 10:41 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-04-19 11:12 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-20 8:55 ` Will Deacon
2026-04-20 9:25 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-20 10:42 ` Will Deacon
2026-04-20 10:56 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-20 15:47 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-04-20 17:04 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-21 6:57 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-21 8:51 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-04-21 9:12 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-20 12:32 ` Sebastian Ene
2026-04-20 12:46 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-04-20 14:20 ` Sebastian Ene
2026-04-20 15:04 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-20 16:50 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-04-20 13:00 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-20 14:05 ` Sebastian Ene
2026-04-20 14:47 ` Yeoreum Yun
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=aedyh61iTnQRyzMv@e129823.arm.com \
--to=yeoreum.yun@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com \
--cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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