Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-79126-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 22:42:23 +0200
Message-Id: <CZCR0STNHQZ7.WQ6RUYVPYKZI@suppilovahvero>
Cc: "Ross Philipson" <ross.philipson@oracle.com>, "Kanth Ghatraju"
 <kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@gmx.dekkjkj>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: protect against locality counter underflow
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>, "Daniel P. Smith"
 <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>, "James Bottomley"
 <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>, "Lino Sanfilippo"
 <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>, "Alexander Steffen"
 <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.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>
 <f1a54774-9a44-4400-91e2-358facc12191@apertussolutions.com>
 <CZCQZ5FTCCB5.GIN1NU7G5S0@suppilovahvero>
In-Reply-To: <CZCQZ5FTCCB5.GIN1NU7G5S0@suppilovahvero>

On Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 10:40 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 3:57 AM EET, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> > On 2/21/24 14:43, 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:
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. Because localities are not too useful these days given TPM2's
> > >>>  =C2=A0=C2=A0 policy mechanism
> > >>
> > >> Localitites are useful to the TPM2 policy mechanism.  When we get ke=
y
> > >> policy in the kernel it will give us a way to create TPM wrapped key=
s
> > >> that can only be unwrapped in the kernel if we run the kernel in a
> > >> different locality from userspace (I already have demo patches doing
> > >> this).
> > >=20
> > > Let's keep this discussion in scope, please.
> > >=20
> > > Removing useless code using registers that you might have some actual=
ly
> > > useful use is not wrong thing to do. It is better to look at things f=
rom
> > > clean slate when the time comes.
> > >=20
> > >>>   I cannot recall out of top of my head can
> > >>>  =C2=A0=C2=A0 you have two localities open at same time.
> > >>
> > >> I think there's a misunderstanding about what localities are: they'r=
e
> > >> effectively an additional platform supplied tag to a command.  Each
> > >> command can therefore have one and only one locality.  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 t=
o
> > > unwanted results.
> > >=20
> > > With a quick check from [1] could not spot the conflict reaction but
> > > it is probably there.
> >
> > The expected behavior is explained in the Informative Comment of sectio=
n=20
> > 6.5.2.4 of the Client PTP spec[1]:
> >
> > "The purpose of this register is to allow the processes operating at th=
e=20
> > various localities to share the TPM. The basic notion is that any=20
> > locality can request access to the TPM by setting the=20
> > TPM_ACCESS_x.requestUse field using its assigned TPM_ACCESS_x register=
=20
> > address. If there is no currently set locality, the TPM sets current=20
> > locality to the requesting one and allows operations only from that=20
> > locality. If the TPM is currently at another locality, the TPM keeps th=
e=20
> > request pending until the currently executing locality frees the TPM.=
=20
>
> Right.
>
> I'd think it would make sense to document the basic dance like this as
> part of kdoc for request_locality:
>
> * Setting TPM_ACCESS_x.requestUse:
> *  1. No locality reserved =3D> set locality.
> *  2. Locality reserved =3D> set pending.
>
> I.e. easy reminder with enough granularity.

Also for any non-TPM kernel developer this should be enough to get the
basic gist of the mechanism without spending too much time reading.

BR, Jarkko