From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
gwendal@chromium.org, apronin@chromium.org,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@aurora.tech>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
zohar@linux.ibm.com, dlunev@google.com,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
Ben Boeckel <me@benboeckel.net>,
jarkko@kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] PM: hibernate: Verify the digest encryption key
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 12:00:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202211041156.3D184961EE@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221103105558.v4.10.I504d456c7a94ef1aaa7a2c63775ce9690c3ad7ab@changeid>
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:01:18AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> We want to ensure that the key used to encrypt the digest was created by
> the kernel during hibernation. To do this we request that the TPM
> include information about the value of PCR 23 at the time of key
> creation in the sealed blob. On resume, we can make sure that the PCR
> information in the creation data blob (already certified by the TPM to
> be accurate) corresponds to the expected value. Since only
> the kernel can touch PCR 23, if an attacker generates a key themselves
> the value of PCR 23 will have been different, allowing us to reject the
> key and boot normally instead of resuming.
>
> Co-developed-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>
>
> ---
> Matthew's original version of this patch is here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pm/patch/20210220013255.1083202-9-matthewgarrett@google.com/
>
> I moved the TPM2_CC_CERTIFYCREATION code into a separate change in the
> trusted key code because the blob_handle was being flushed and was no
> longer valid for use in CC_CERTIFYCREATION after the key was loaded. As
> an added benefit of moving the certification into the trusted keys code,
> we can drop the other patch from the original series that squirrelled
> the blob_handle away.
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Local variable reordering (Jarkko)
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Changed funky tag to Co-developed-by (Kees). Matthew, holler if you
> want something different.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Fixed some sparse warnings
> - Use CRYPTO_LIB_SHA256 to get rid of sha256_data() (Eric)
> - Adjusted offsets due to new ASN.1 format, and added a creation data
> length check.
>
> kernel/power/snapenc.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/power/snapenc.c b/kernel/power/snapenc.c
> index 50167a37c5bf23..2f421061498246 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/snapenc.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/snapenc.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ static struct tpm_digest known_digest = { .alg_id = TPM_ALG_SHA256,
> 0xf1, 0x22, 0x38, 0x6c, 0x33, 0xb1, 0x14, 0xb7, 0xec, 0x05,
> 0x5f, 0x49}};
>
> +/* sha256(sha256(empty_pcr | known_digest)) */
> +static const char expected_digest[] = {0x2f, 0x96, 0xf2, 0x1b, 0x70, 0xa9, 0xe8,
> + 0x42, 0x25, 0x8e, 0x66, 0x07, 0xbe, 0xbc, 0xe3, 0x1f, 0x2c, 0x84, 0x4a,
> + 0x3f, 0x85, 0x17, 0x31, 0x47, 0x9a, 0xa5, 0x53, 0xbb, 0x23, 0x0c, 0x32,
> + 0xf3};
> +
> /* Derive a key from the kernel and user keys for data encryption. */
> static int snapshot_use_user_key(struct snapshot_data *data)
> {
> @@ -486,7 +492,7 @@ static int snapshot_setup_encryption_common(struct snapshot_data *data)
> static int snapshot_create_kernel_key(struct snapshot_data *data)
> {
> /* Create a key sealed by the SRK. */
> - char *keyinfo = "new\t32\tkeyhandle=0x81000000";
> + char *keyinfo = "new\t32\tkeyhandle=0x81000000\tcreationpcrs=0x00800000";
> const struct cred *cred = current_cred();
> struct tpm_digest *digests = NULL;
> struct key *key = NULL;
> @@ -613,6 +619,8 @@ static int snapshot_load_kernel_key(struct snapshot_data *data,
>
> char *keytemplate = "load\t%s\tkeyhandle=0x81000000";
> const struct cred *cred = current_cred();
> + struct trusted_key_payload *payload;
> + char certhash[SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE];
> struct tpm_digest *digests = NULL;
> char *blobstring = NULL;
> struct key *key = NULL;
> @@ -635,8 +643,10 @@ static int snapshot_load_kernel_key(struct snapshot_data *data,
>
> digests = kcalloc(chip->nr_allocated_banks, sizeof(struct tpm_digest),
> GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!digests)
> + if (!digests) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> goto out;
> + }
>
> for (i = 0; i < chip->nr_allocated_banks; i++) {
> digests[i].alg_id = chip->allocated_banks[i].alg_id;
> @@ -676,6 +686,59 @@ static int snapshot_load_kernel_key(struct snapshot_data *data,
> if (ret != 0)
> goto out;
>
> + /* Verify the creation hash matches the creation data. */
> + payload = key->payload.data[0];
> + if (!payload->creation || !payload->creation_hash ||
> + (payload->creation_len < 3) ||
Later accesses are reaching into indexes, 6, 8, 12, 14, etc. Shouldn't
this test be:
(payload->creation_len < 14 + SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE) ||
> + (payload->creation_hash_len < SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + sha256(payload->creation + 2, payload->creation_len - 2, certhash);
Why +2 offset?
> + if (memcmp(payload->creation_hash + 2, certhash, SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE) != 0) {
And if this is +2 also, shouldn't the earlier test be:
(payload->creation_hash_len - 2 != SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE)) {
?
> + if (be32_to_cpu(*(__be32 *)&payload->creation[2]) != 1) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&payload->creation[6]) != TPM_ALG_SHA256) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (*(char *)&payload->creation[8] != 3) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* PCR 23 selected */
> + if (be32_to_cpu(*(__be32 *)&payload->creation[8]) != 0x03000080) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&payload->creation[12]) !=
> + SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* Verify PCR 23 contained the expected value when the key was created. */
> + if (memcmp(&payload->creation[14], expected_digest,
> + SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE) != 0) {
These various literals (2, 6, 8, 3, 8, 0x03000080, 12, 14) should be
explicit #defines so their purpose/meaning is more clear.
I can guess at it, but better to avoid the guessing. :)
> +
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> data->key = key;
> key = NULL;
>
> --
> 2.38.1.431.g37b22c650d-goog
>
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-04 19:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-03 18:01 [PATCH v4 00/11] Encrypted Hibernation Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 01/11] tpm: Add support for in-kernel resetting of PCRs Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 02/11] tpm: Export and rename tpm2_find_and_validate_cc() Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:25 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-07 11:37 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 03/11] tpm: Allow PCR 23 to be restricted to kernel-only use Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:27 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-07 11:39 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-07 18:15 ` Evan Green
2022-11-11 20:04 ` Evan Green
2022-11-23 23:03 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 04/11] security: keys: trusted: Include TPM2 creation data Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:33 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-07 20:11 ` Evan Green
2022-11-10 0:29 ` Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 05/11] security: keys: trusted: Allow storage of PCR values in " Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:34 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 06/11] security: keys: trusted: Verify " Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:35 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 07/11] PM: hibernate: Add kernel-based encryption Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:38 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-10 0:29 ` Evan Green
2022-11-07 11:42 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 08/11] PM: hibernate: Use TPM-backed keys to encrypt image Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:41 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 09/11] PM: hibernate: Mix user key in encrypted hibernate Evan Green
2022-11-04 18:54 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-10 0:30 ` Evan Green
2022-11-10 16:17 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-10 18:32 ` Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 10/11] PM: hibernate: Verify the digest encryption key Evan Green
2022-11-04 19:00 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2022-11-10 0:30 ` Evan Green
2022-11-03 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 11/11] PM: hibernate: seal the encryption key with a PCR policy Evan Green
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=202211041156.3D184961EE@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=apronin@chromium.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dlunev@google.com \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=evgreen@chromium.org \
--cc=gwendal@chromium.org \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@benboeckel.net \
--cc=mgarrett@aurora.tech \
--cc=mjg59@google.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--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