public inbox for linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li>
To: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
	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, 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, noodles@meta.com,
	sebastianene@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] security: ima: call ima_init() again at late_initcall_sync for defered TPM
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 15:03:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aeomlp3I0eVE5mce@earth.li> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aeokwrC86WI7uT+K@e129823.arm.com>

On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 02:55:14PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
>> On Thu, 2026-04-23 at 13:53 +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 01:34:13PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
>> > > > > On Thu, 2026-04-23 at 06:55 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Wed, 2026-04-22 at 20:41 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > Hi Mimi,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2026-04-22 at 17:24 +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, call ima_init() again at 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>
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > A lot of change for just detecting whether ima_init() is being called on
>> > > > > > > > > > late_initcall or late_initcall_sync(), without any explanation for all the other
>> > > > > > > > > > changes (e.g. ima_init_core).
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Please just limit the change to just calling ima_init() twice.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > My concern is that ima_update_policy_flags() will be called
>> > > > > > > > > when ima_init() is deferred -- not initialised anything.
>> > > > > > > > > though functionally, it might be okay however,
>> > > > > > > > > I think ima_update_policy_flags() and notifier should work after ima_init()
>> > > > > > > > > works logically.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > This change I think not much quite a lot. just wrapper ima_init() with
>> > > > > > > > > ima_init_core() with some error handling.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Am I missing something?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Also, if we handle in ima_init() only, but it failed with other reason,
>> > > > > > > > we shouldn't call again ima_init() in the late_initcall_sync.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > To handle this, It wouldn't do in the ima_init() but we need to handle
>> > > > > > > > it by caller of ima_init().
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Only tpm_default_chip() is being called to set the ima_tpm_chip.  On failure,
>> > > > > > > instead of going into TPM-bypass mode, return immediately.  There are no calls
>> > > > > > > to anything else.  Just call ima_init() a second time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I’m not fully convinced this is sufficient.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > What I meant is the case where ima_init() fails due to other
>> > > > > > initialisation steps, not only tpm_default_chip() (e.g. ima_fs_init()).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The purpose of THIS patch is to add late_initcall_sync, when the TPM is not
>> > > > > available at late_initcall.  This would be classified as a bug fix and would be
>> > > > > backported.  No other changes should be included in this patch.
>> > > >
>> > > > Okay.
>> > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I’d also like to ask again whether it is fine to call
>> > > > > > ima_update_policy_flags() and keep the notifier registered in the
>> > > > > > deferred TPM case. While this may be functionally acceptable, it seems
>> > > > > > logically questionable to do so when ima_init() has not completed.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Other than extending the TPM, IMA should behave exactly the same whether there
>> > > > > is a TPM or goes into TPM-bypass mode.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There is also a possibility that a deferred case ultimately fails (e.g.
>> > > > > > deferred at late_initcall, but then failing at late_initcall_sync
>> > > > > > for another reason, even while entering TPM bypass mode). In that case,
>> > > > > > it seems more appropriate to handle this state in the caller of
>> > > > > > ima_init(), rather than inside ima_init() itself.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If the TPM isn't found at late_initcall_sync(), then IMA should go into TPM-
>> > > > > bypass mode.  Please don't make any other changes to the existing IMA behavior
>> > > > > and hide it here behind the late_initcall_sync change.
>> > > >
>> > > > Okay. you're talking called ima_update_policy_flags() at late_initcall
>> > > > wouldn't be not a problem even in case of late_initcall_sync's ima_init()
>> > > > get failed with "TPM-bypass mode".
>> > > >
>> > > > I see then, I'll make a patch simpler then.
>> > >
>> > > But I think in case of below situation:
>> > >  - late_initcall's first ima_init() is deferred.
>> > >  - late_initcall_sync try again but failed and try again with
>> > >    CONFIG_IMA_DEFAULT_HASH.
>> > >
>> > > I would like to sustain init_ima_core to reduce the same code repeat
>> > > in late_initcall_sync.
>> >
>> > I think what Mimi's proposing is:
>> >
>> > If we're in late_initcall, and the TPM isn't available, return
>> > immediately with an error (the EPROBE_DEFER?), don't do any init.
>> >
>> > If we're in late_initcall_sync, either we're already initialised, so do
>> > return and nothing, or run through the entire flow, even if the TPM
>> > isn't unavailable.
>> >
>> > So ima_init() just needs to know a) if it's in the sync or non-sync mode
>> > and b) for the sync mode, if we've already done the init at
>> > non-sync.
>>
>> Thanks, Jonathan.  That is exactly what I'm suggesting.  Any other changes
>> should not be included in this patch.  Since Yeoreum is not hearing me, feel
>> free to post a patch.
>
>I see. so what you need to is this only
>If it looks good to you. I'll send it at v3.

FWIW, I pulled the tpm_default_chip check out a level to account for the 
extra init you mentioned, and have the following (completely untested or 
compiled, but gives the approach):

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_init.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
index a2f34f2d8ad7..a60dfb8316d8 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c
@@ -119,10 +119,6 @@ int __init ima_init(void)
  {
  	int rc;
  
-	ima_tpm_chip = tpm_default_chip();
-	if (!ima_tpm_chip)
-		pr_info("No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass!\n");
-
  	rc = integrity_init_keyring(INTEGRITY_KEYRING_IMA);
  	if (rc)
  		return rc;
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
index 1d6229b156fb..b60a85fa803a 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
@@ -1237,7 +1237,7 @@ static int ima_kernel_module_request(char *kmod_name)
  
  #endif /* CONFIG_INTEGRITY_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS */
  
-static int __init init_ima(void)
+static int __init init_ima(bool sync)
  {
  	int error;
  
@@ -1247,6 +1247,19 @@ static int __init init_ima(void)
  		return 0;
  	}
  
+	/* If we found the TPM during our first attempt, nothing further to do */
+	if (sync && ima_tpm_chip)
+		return 0;
+
+	ima_tpm_chip = tpm_default_chip();
+	if (!ima_tpm_chip && !sync) {
+		pr_debug("TPM not available, will try later\n");
+		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
+	}
+
+	if (!ima_tpm_chip)
+		pr_info("No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass!\n");
+
  	ima_appraise_parse_cmdline();
  	ima_init_template_list();
  	hash_setup(CONFIG_IMA_DEFAULT_HASH);
@@ -1274,6 +1287,16 @@ static int __init init_ima(void)
  	return error;
  }
  
+static int __init init_ima_late(void)
+{
+	return init_ima(false);
+}
+
+static int __init init_ima_late_sync(void)
+{
+	return init_ima(true);
+}
+
  static struct security_hook_list ima_hooks[] __ro_after_init = {
  	LSM_HOOK_INIT(bprm_check_security, ima_bprm_check),
  	LSM_HOOK_INIT(bprm_creds_for_exec, ima_bprm_creds_for_exec),
@@ -1319,6 +1342,7 @@ DEFINE_LSM(ima) = {
  	.init = init_ima_lsm,
  	.order = LSM_ORDER_LAST,
  	.blobs = &ima_blob_sizes,
-	/* Start IMA after the TPM is available */
-	.initcall_late = init_ima,
+	/* Ensure we start IMA after the TPM is available */
+	.initcall_late = init_ima_late,
+	.initcall_late_sync = init_ima_late_sync,
  };
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);


J.

-- 
Rock and roll stops the traffic.
This .sig brought to you by the letter A and the number 40
Product of the Republic of HuggieTag

  reply	other threads:[~2026-04-23 14:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-22 16:24 [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] fix FF-A call failed with pKVM when ff-a driver is built-in Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-22 16:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] security: ima: call ima_init() again at late_initcall_sync for defered TPM Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-22 17:20   ` Mimi Zohar
2026-04-22 18:46     ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-22 19:41       ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-22 21:20         ` Mimi Zohar
2026-04-23  5:55           ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23 11:01             ` Mimi Zohar
2026-04-23 11:20               ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23 12:34                 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23 12:53                   ` Jonathan McDowell
2026-04-23 13:07                     ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23 13:43                     ` Mimi Zohar
2026-04-23 13:55                       ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23 14:03                         ` Jonathan McDowell [this message]
2026-04-23 14:33                           ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23 18:01                             ` Mimi Zohar
2026-04-23 18:13                               ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23 14:48                           ` Mimi Zohar
2026-04-23 17:02                             ` Jonathan McDowell
2026-04-23 17:13                               ` Mimi Zohar
2026-04-22 16:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] tpm: tpm_crb_ffa: revert defered_probed when tpm_crb_ffa is built-in Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23 10:17   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-04-22 16:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] firmware: arm_ffa: revert ffa_init() initcall level to device_initcall Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23  9:13   ` Sudeep Holla
2026-04-22 16:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] firmware: arm_ffa: check pkvm initailised when initailise ffa driver Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-23  8:34   ` Marc Zyngier
2026-04-23 10:29     ` 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=aeomlp3I0eVE5mce@earth.li \
    --to=noodles@earth.li \
    --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=noodles@meta.com \
    --cc=oupton@kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
    --cc=sebastianene@google.com \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@kernel.org \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yeoreum.yun@arm.com \
    --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