Received: by 2002:a25:824b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d11csp1804815ybn; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 02:27:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy42L0QOVVEVWwJGoj3VPYMOQqvLXpMV+J+90hwLJnn36hc404iZX4GxgiGVTKdtkprALY2 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:794:: with SMTP id d20mr2489814edy.20.1569490071092; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 02:27:51 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1569490071; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=jkzA3tf/6xEyTOpnz/xvyrHHfY11vJfZB+ePhk6OqRe4G4pICgwFgAr4matYRFCpfk fJrkxYm1uqyitZgba5zfxxqaKYFHnJLc3jOLp2vlDGv2Ue6RrSbA0fVK5/7e5rTnFZNB KuGVKdqsSqGv10p0pMMdpDl0LtZXP9H5lFsxdpkVOlhX2mu89+zU0DYDtctyAJhFA6Ry 3c5Q/v6NQLE+gI+MAPVnBzR+aO0vcWbaar2wOk/YF/CoL88FLV8ScyoVEnBZZ6r5dCwI AwjtztYtMjM2nMZdAOy7gKDstLgE9PpZ78B4A+LIacrLrlP+sTCXQn20bHCxhQYIdiIO S3LA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:organization:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:to :from:date; bh=7/WHTM5AxFRGhqeXt8mLgYM6r8ZcawMP+VUldTkp7D8=; b=Q+6VOmVxWCRJMzIW303RjRC13QYebSpA2g2PumRt2jNxHOsWZeK9pomkf7USS0weYj xo52JzKu8Rxejq9xNphlIa4X7NT++yeWYzJc2W3yRMethJJ2ZEBEeSay5JKdpqb9GQwS f0QITu1ruFA15qedkKbDVrSxidkp5luf4rGwkDS9P94HSl4/JuaOicvzwbxCNqIk4Co2 47Nr6zFrygESjlZDgWsppgbPphc8rDAPTqk+bLIlUDIg7d/dxzCtOrfY0ISjQaH5nQrr jARArdX9w2qHModJIPsXT9E6tsPdJNdlVhoHMdTvgj11eng6Z15zRPR8SOCzxO88ovDY ddiw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f14si831358edt.92.2019.09.26.02.27.28; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 02:27:51 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390192AbfIYKk6 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:40:58 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:44959 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729957AbfIYKk5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2019 06:40:57 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Sep 2019 03:40:57 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,547,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="179777327" Received: from dariusvo-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.249.39.150]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2019 03:40:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:40:50 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett , Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tpm: only set efi_tpm_final_log_size after successful event log parsing Message-ID: <20190925104050.GD6256@linux.intel.com> References: <20190918191626.5741-1-jsnitsel@redhat.com> <20190923171010.csz4js3xs2mixmpq@cantor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190923171010.csz4js3xs2mixmpq@cantor> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:10:10AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > Any thoughts on this? I know of at least 2 Lenovo models that are > running into this problem. > > In the case of the one I have currently have access to the problem is > that the hash algorithm id for an event isn't one that is currently in > the TCG registry, and it fails to find a match when walking the > digest_sizes array. That seems like an issue for the vendor to fix in the bios, > but we should look at the return value of tpm2_calc_event_log_size and not > stick a negative value in efi_tpm_final_log_size. Please use then "pr_err(FW_BUG". Also, since you know the context you could add a comment along the lines what you wrote. /Jarkko