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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190401183211.GA21228@beast> <1554144741.3029.18.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
In-Reply-To: <1554144741.3029.18.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:54:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLuPTvcQbhEXKfh0fgWkA4g__kET=tbY8njraXXQYug+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Actually fail on TPM errors during "get random"
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>,
        Phil Baker <baker1tex@gmail.com>,
        Craig Robson <craig@zhatt.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:52 AM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-04-01 at 11:32 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> [...]
> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm1-cmd.c
> > @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ struct tpm1_get_random_out {
> >   *
> >   * Return:
> >   * *  number of bytes read
> > - * * -errno or a TPM return code otherwise
> > + * * -errno (positive TPM return codes are masked to -EIO)
> >   */
> >  int tpm1_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *dest, size_t max)
> >  {
> > @@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ int tpm1_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8
> > *dest, size_t max)
> >
> >       rc = tpm_buf_init(&buf, TPM_TAG_RQU_COMMAND,
> > TPM_ORD_GET_RANDOM);
> >       if (rc)
> > -             return rc;
> > +             goto fail;
> >
> >       do {
> >               tpm_buf_append_u32(&buf, num_bytes);
> > @@ -559,7 +559,10 @@ int tpm1_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8
> > *dest, size_t max)
> >       rc = total ? (int)total : -EIO;
> >  out:
> >       tpm_buf_destroy(&buf);
> > -     return rc;
>
> You can't remove this otherwise the only return will ever be a failure.
>
> I think what you're trying to catch is tpm_transmit_cmd returning a
> positive failure, So you need to check the output of tpm_transmit_cmd
> as well and goto failure leaving the above return in place.

eek, yes. I double-checked this in tpm2, but tpm1 is different...

-- 
Kees Cook