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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] tpm: pass an array of tpm_bank_list structures
 to tpm_pcr_extend()
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     david.safford@ge.com, monty.wiseman@ge.com,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com
Date:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:33:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: <26519f33-b5d6-c2c6-5179-c43f197f2cbd@huawei.com>
References: <20181114153108.12907-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
         <20181114153108.12907-8-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
         <20181116150352.GA3612@linux.intel.com>
         <9c534ed1-7832-7a3b-3e69-5fcc25c565cc@huawei.com>
         <20181118072745.GA5897@linux.intel.com>
         <1542603470.4914.55.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <26519f33-b5d6-c2c6-5179-c43f197f2cbd@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1542638020.4914.126.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 09:16 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On 11/19/2018 5:57 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-11-18 at 09:27 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 04:55:36PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> >>> On 11/16/2018 4:03 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 04:31:08PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> >>>>> Currently, tpm_pcr_extend() accepts as an input only a SHA1 digest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch modifies the definition of tpm_pcr_extend() to allow other
> >>>>> kernel subsystems to pass a digest for each algorithm supported by the TPM.
> >>>>> All digests are processed by the TPM in one operation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If a tpm_pcr_extend() caller provides a subset of the supported algorithms,
> >>>>> the TPM driver extends the remaining PCR banks with the first digest
> >>>>> passed as an argument to the function.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the legit use case for this?
> >>>
> >>> A subset could be chosen for better performance, or when a TPM algorithm
> >>> is not supported by the crypto subsystem.
> >>
> >> Doesn't extending a subset a security concern?
> > 
> > Right, so instead of extending a subset of the allocated banks, all of
> > the allocated banks need to be extended, even for those banks that a
> > digest was not included.  This is no different than what is being done
> > today.  IMA is currently only calculating the SHA1 hash, padding the
> > digest with 0's, and extending the padded value(s) into all of the
> > allocated banks.
> 
> The caller of tpm_pcr_extend() could pass a subset of the allocated
> banks, but the TPM driver extends all banks as before.

Agreed, there should be a clear division.

1) The caller shouldn't need to know anything about the chip->info.
2) The TPM driver should not rely on the caller to supply all the
hashes, but verify that all allocated banks are being extended.

Mimi

> 
> 
> > If there is a vulnerability with the hash algorithm, then any bank
> > extended with the padded/truncated digest would be susceptible.
> > 
> > IMA will need to become TPM 2.0 aware, calculating and extending
> > multiple banks and define a new measurement list format containing the
> > multiple digests.
> > 
> > Mimi
> > 
>