Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-81071-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:39:59 +0200
Message-Id: <CZEWT9D2Z7XN.36JUV0NGC2WR0@suppilovahvero>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: protect against locality counter underflow
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.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>
Cc: "Ross Philipson" <ross.philipson@oracle.com>, "Kanth Ghatraju"
 <kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
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>
 <CZA9ADCGOTQT.LB5XHZZVTWVH@seitikki>
 <88b75c9c-98ab-4474-8112-6a27d11a2fdf@apertussolutions.com>
 <CZCH5V83WBBV.20JR0RC1GJVJY@suppilovahvero>
 <44267c53-496d-4e41-896a-623673d938cb@apertussolutions.com>
In-Reply-To: <44267c53-496d-4e41-896a-623673d938cb@apertussolutions.com>

On Sun Feb 25, 2024 at 1:23 PM EET, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 2/23/24 07:58, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 3:58 AM EET, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> >>> Just adding here that I wish we also had a log transcript of bug, whi=
ch
> >>> is right now missing. The explanation believable enough to move forwa=
rd
> >>> but I still wish to see a log transcript.
> >>
> >> That will be forth coming.
> >=20
> > I did not respond yet to other responses that you've given in the past
> > 12'ish hours or so (just woke up) but I started to think how all this
> > great and useful information would be best kept in memory. Some of it
> > has been discussed in the past but there is lot of small details that
> > are too easily forgotten.
> >=20
> > I'd think the best "documentation" approach here would be inject the
> > spec references to the sites where locality behaviour is changed so
> > that it is easy in future cross-reference them, and least of risk
> > of having code changes that would break anything. I think this way
> > all the information that you provided is best preserved for the
> > future.
> >=20
> > Thanks a lot for great and informative responses!
>
> No problem at all.
>
> Here is a serial output[1] from a dynamic launch using Linux Secure=20
> Launch v7[2] with one additional patch[3] to dump TPM driver state.

But are this fixes for a kernel tree with [2] applied.

If the bugs do not occur in the mainline tree without the out-of-tree
feature, they are not bug fixes. They should then really be part of that
series.

BR, Jarkko