From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
<tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix a race condition tpm2_unseal_trusted()
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:13:32 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160720211332.GA32417@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160720205314.GA6525@intel.com>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:53:14PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> The only use cases I see at the moment for it work this way:
>
> 1. Call tpm_try_get_ops.
> 2. Send a TPM command.
> 3. Call tpm_put_ops.
Right, but that is just a reflection of what the in kernel users are
doing today, not necessarily what they should be doing.
We should not break the put/get semantics..
> I did not find any other form of use. The only use is to make sure that
> there are no transactions running before the ops are cleared. Or did I
> overlook something perhaps?
The put/get is intended to allow a kapi user to hold a ref to tpm
without it geting destroyed. It is not intended to be an exclusive lock.
> Trusted key unseal operation with TPM2 is broken into two operations:
>
> 1. Load the given key blob.
> 2. Unseal the data.
>
> Without locking and unlocking mutex only once there is a race condition.
Well, the race condition is fundamentally because we don't have key
virtualization in the kernel :|
Those sorts of compound ops should hold the tpm_mutex manually, not
through the get_ops scheme.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-20 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-20 0:16 [PATCH] tpm: fix a race condition tpm2_unseal_trusted() Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-07-20 16:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2016-07-20 20:53 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-07-20 21:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2016-07-21 9:02 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-07-21 16:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2016-08-09 10:36 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-08-09 15:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-08-16 19:38 Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-08-17 4:31 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-08-24 0:57 Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-08-24 1:32 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-08-25 18:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2016-08-25 21:06 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-08-25 21:09 ` Jason Gunthorpe
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=20160720211332.GA32417@obsidianresearch.com \
--to=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=tpmdd@selhorst.net \
/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).