Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] security: ima: call ima_init() again at late_initcall_sync for defered TPM

Yeoreum Yun
2026-04-22T19:41:16Z

> 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().

--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun