On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 09:58:34AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Jarkko, > > On 12/07/2017 02:32 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:30:12AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> According to the TPM Library Specification, a TPM device must do a command > >> header validation before processing and return a TPM_RC_COMMAND_CODE code > >> if the command is not implemented. > >> > >> So user-space will expect to handle that response as an error. But if the > >> in-kernel resource manager is used (/dev/tpmrm?), an -EINVAL errno code is > >> returned instead if the command isn't implemented. This confuses userspace > >> since it doesn't expect that error value. > >> > >> This also isn't consistent with the behavior when not using TPM spaces and > >> accessing the TPM directly (/dev/tpm?). In this case, the command is sent > >> to the TPM even when not implemented and the TPM responds with an error. > >> > >> Instead of returning an -EINVAL errno code when the tpm_validate_command() > >> function fails, synthesize a TPM command response so user-space can get a > >> TPM_RC_COMMAND_CODE as expected when a chip doesn't implement the command. > >> > >> The TPM only sets 12 of the 32 bits in the TPM_RC response, so the TSS and > >> TAB specifications define that higher layers in the stack should use some > >> of the unused 20 bits to specify from which level of the stack the error > >> is coming from. > >> > >> Since the TPM_RC_COMMAND_CODE response code is sent by the kernel resource > >> manager, set the error level to the TAB/RM layer so user-space is aware of > >> this. > >> > >> Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <j...@ziepe.ca> > >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javi...@redhat.com> > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Changes since RFCv2: > >> - Set the error level to the TAB/RM layer so user-space is aware that the > >> error > >> is not coming from the TPM (suggested by Philip Tricca and Jarkko > >> Sakkinen). > >> > >> Changes since RFCv1: > >> - Don't pass not validated commands to the TPM, instead return a > >> synthesized > >> response with the correct TPM return code (suggested by Jason Gunthorpe). > >> > >> And example of user-space getting confused by the TPM chardev returning > >> -EINVAL > >> when sending a not supported TPM command can be seen in this tpm2-tools > >> issue: > >> > >> https://github.com/intel/tpm2-tools/issues/621 > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Javier > >> > >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- > >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 8 ++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > >> b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > >> index ebe0a1d36d8c..9391811c5f83 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > >> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > >> @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ unsigned long tpm_calc_ordinal_duration(struct > >> tpm_chip *chip, > >> } > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_calc_ordinal_duration); > >> > >> -static bool tpm_validate_command(struct tpm_chip *chip, > >> +static int tpm_validate_command(struct tpm_chip *chip, > >> struct tpm_space *space, > >> const u8 *cmd, > >> size_t len) > >> @@ -340,10 +340,10 @@ static bool tpm_validate_command(struct tpm_chip > >> *chip, > >> unsigned int nr_handles; > >> > >> if (len < TPM_HEADER_SIZE) > >> - return false; > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> > >> if (!space) > >> - return true; > >> + return 0; > >> > >> if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2 && chip->nr_commands) { > >> cc = be32_to_cpu(header->ordinal); > >> @@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ static bool tpm_validate_command(struct tpm_chip *chip, > >> if (i < 0) { > >> dev_dbg(&chip->dev, "0x%04X is an invalid command\n", > >> cc); > >> - return false; > >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > >> } > >> > >> attrs = chip->cc_attrs_tbl[i]; > >> @@ -362,11 +362,11 @@ static bool tpm_validate_command(struct tpm_chip > >> *chip, > >> goto err_len; > >> } > >> > >> - return true; > >> + return 0; > >> err_len: > >> dev_dbg(&chip->dev, > >> "%s: insufficient command length %zu", __func__, len); > >> - return false; > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> } > >> > >> /** > >> @@ -391,8 +391,20 @@ ssize_t tpm_transmit(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct > >> tpm_space *space, > >> unsigned long stop; > >> bool need_locality; > >> > >> - if (!tpm_validate_command(chip, space, buf, bufsiz)) > >> - return -EINVAL; > >> + rc = tpm_validate_command(chip, space, buf, bufsiz); > >> + if (rc == -EINVAL) > >> + return rc; > >> + /* > >> + * If the command is not implemented by the TPM, synthesize a > >> + * response with a TPM2_RC_COMMAND_CODE return for user-space. > >> + */ > >> + if (rc == -EOPNOTSUPP) { > >> + header->length = cpu_to_be32(sizeof(*header)); > >> + header->tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS); > >> + header->return_code = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_RC_COMMAND_CODE | > >> + TPM2_RESMGRTPM_ERROR_LEVEL); > >> + return bufsiz; > >> + } > >> > >> if (bufsiz > TPM_BUFSIZE) > >> bufsiz = TPM_BUFSIZE; > >> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > >> index c1866cc02e30..b3f9108d3d1f 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > >> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > >> @@ -94,12 +94,20 @@ enum tpm2_structures { > >> TPM2_ST_SESSIONS = 0x8002, > >> }; > >> > >> +/* Indicates from what level of the software stack the error comes from */ > >> +#define TPM2_RC_LEVEL_SHIFT 16 > >> + > >> +#define TPM2_RESMGRTPM_ERROR_LEVEL (11 << TPM2_RC_LEVEL_SHIFT) > >> +#define TPM2_RESMGR_ERROR_LEVEL (12 << TPM2_RC_LEVEL_SHIFT) > >> +#define TPM2_DRIVER_ERROR_LEVEL (13 << TPM2_RC_LEVEL_SHIFT) > >> + > >> enum tpm2_return_codes { > >> TPM2_RC_SUCCESS = 0x0000, > >> TPM2_RC_HASH = 0x0083, /* RC_FMT1 */ > >> TPM2_RC_HANDLE = 0x008B, > >> TPM2_RC_INITIALIZE = 0x0100, /* RC_VER1 */ > >> TPM2_RC_DISABLED = 0x0120, > >> + TPM2_RC_COMMAND_CODE = 0x0143, > >> TPM2_RC_TESTING = 0x090A, /* RC_WARN */ > >> TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0 = 0x0910, > >> }; > >> -- > >> 2.14.3 > >> > > > > Please use next time --subject-prefix="PATCH v3". > > > > I did. But you are answering to my v1 patch. The v3 can be found here with the > following subject "[PATCH v3] tpm: return a TPM_RC_COMMAND_CODE response if > command is not implemented" > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10084305/ > > Probably you got confused because I posted 2 RFCs before posting a proper > PATCH > and then PATCHv3 and v3. > > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> > > > > Thanks! As mentioned this is v1, but I guess it also applies to v3 since the > only differences are the removal of the unused defines and the naming change > we discussed. > > > /Jarkko > > > > Best regards, > -- > Javier Martinez Canillas > Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement > Red Hat
Anyway, it is landed now. /Jarkko
