Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-77544-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 01:49:17 +0200
Message-Id: <CZC0DCWSO6EW.2TWZ7DKGPZB41@kernel.org>
Cc: "Ross Philipson" <ross.philipson@oracle.com>, "Kanth Ghatraju"
 <kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: protect against locality counter underflow
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "James Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>, "Lino
 Sanfilippo" <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>, "Alexander Steffen"
 <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com>, "Daniel P. Smith"
 <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>, "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>, "Sasha
 Levin" <sashal@kernel.org>, <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240131170824.6183-1-dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>
 <20240131170824.6183-2-dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>
 <CYU3CFW08DAA.29DJY7SJYPJJZ@suppilovahvero>
 <2ba9a96e-f93b-48e2-9ca0-48318af7f9b1@kunbus.com>
 <ae3fecc4-7b76-4607-8749-045e17941923@infineon.com>
 <91f600ef-867b-4523-89be-1c0ba34f8a4c@kunbus.com>
 <CZA9CM3PDILC.82JMLUWMB6B7@seitikki> <CZA9GMC718HA.1JFHTTWV563IE@seitikki>
 <7a7f8f0c1b9d124bfc01b66082abf2d8445564ce.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <CZB0I9OAGNHT.1HTSJU3925RBY@seitikki>
 <354bf802d27ea995858e41dd90d9a83ffc6739aa.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
In-Reply-To: <354bf802d27ea995858e41dd90d9a83ffc6739aa.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

On Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 11:06 AM EET, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 19:43 +0000, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed Feb 21, 2024 at 12:37 PM UTC, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2024-02-20 at 22:31 +0000, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> [...]
> > > > =C2=A0I cannot recall out of top of my head can
> > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0 you have two localities open at same time.
> > >=20
> > > I think there's a misunderstanding about what localities are:
> > > they're effectively an additional platform supplied tag to a
> > > command.=C2=A0 Each command can therefore have one and only one
> > > locality.=C2=A0 The TPM doesn't
> >=20
> > Actually this was not unclear at all. I even read the chapters from
> > Ariel Segall's yesterday as a refresher.
> >=20
> > I was merely asking that if TPM_ACCESS_X is not properly cleared and
> > you se TPM_ACCESS_Y where Y < X how does the hardware react as the
> > bug report is pretty open ended and not very clear of the steps
> > leading to unwanted results.
>
> So TPM_ACCESS_X is *not* a generic TPM thing, it's a TIS interface
> specific thing.  Now the TIS interface seems to be dominating, so
> perhaps it is the correct programming model for us to follow, but not
> all current TPMs adhere to it.

I know, I only have CRB based TPMs in my host machines but here the
context is TIS interface so in this scope it's what we care about.

We're trying to fix a bug here, not speculate what additional
features could be done with localities.

BR, Jarkko