Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 21:25:36 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ima: Use tpm_chip_find() and access TPM functions
 using it
Message-ID: <20180622032536.GB19151@ziepe.ca>
References: <20180620204236.1572523-1-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180620204236.1572523-4-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1529614425.23843.20.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <f4af7347-a9dd-1683-5c2c-faeb45750e2e@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <f4af7347-a9dd-1683-5c2c-faeb45750e2e@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 04:59:55PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 06/21/2018 04:53 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 16:42 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >>Rather than accessing the TPM functions using a NULL pointer, which
> >>causes a lookup for a suitable chip every time, get a hold of a tpm_chip
> >>and access the TPM functions using this chip. We call the tpm_chip
> >>ima_tpm_chip and protect it, once initialization is done, using a
> >>rw_semaphore called ima_tpm_chip_lock.
> >>
> >>Use ima_shutdown to release the tpm_chip.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>  security/integrity/ima/ima.h        |  3 +++
> >>  security/integrity/ima/ima_crypto.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> >>  security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c   | 19 ++++++++++++-------
> >>  security/integrity/ima/ima_queue.c  |  7 +++++--
> >>  4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> >>index 354bb5716ce3..53a88d578ca5 100644
> >>+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> >>@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> >>  #include <linux/hash.h>
> >>  #include <linux/tpm.h>
> >>  #include <linux/audit.h>
> >>+#include <linux/rwsem.h>
> >>  #include <crypto/hash_info.h>
> >>
> >>  #include "../integrity.h"
> >>@@ -56,6 +57,8 @@ extern int ima_policy_flag;
> >>  extern int ima_used_chip;
> >>  extern int ima_hash_algo;
> >>  extern int ima_appraise;
> >>+extern struct rw_semaphore ima_tpm_chip_lock;
> >>+extern struct tpm_chip *ima_tpm_chip;
> >
> >ima_add_templatE_entry() synchronizes appending a measurement to the
> >measurement list and extending the TPM by taking a lock.  Do we really
> >need to introduce another lock?
> 
> This lock protects the ima_tpm_chip from going from != NULL to NULL in the
> ima_shutdown function. Basically, a global pointer accessed by concurrent
> threads should be protected if its value can change. However, in this case
> ima_shutdown would be called so late that there shouldn't be concurrency
> anymore. Though, I found it better to protect it. Maybe someone else has an
> opinion?

Why have a shutdown block? There is no harm in holding a kref if the
machine is shutting down.

Jason