On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:43:30AM -0700, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> From: Petr Vandrovec <[email protected]>
> 
> When TPM2 log has entries with more than 3 digests, or with digests
> not listed in the log header, log gets misparsed, eventually
> leading to kernel complaint that code tried to vmalloc 512MB of
> memory (I have no idea what would happen on bigger system).

It would be easier to follow this if you would give a concrete
example of such situation. Since you are contributing this, you
must must have bumped into this, haven't you?

> So code should not parse only first 3 digests: both event header
> and event itself are already in memory, so we can parse any number
> of digests, as long as we do not try to parse whole memory when
> given count of 0xFFFFFFFF.
> 
> So this change:
> 
> * Rejects event entry with more digests than log header describes.
>   Digest types should be unique, and all should be described in
>   log header, so there cannot be more digests in the event than in
>   the header.
> 
> * Reject event entry with digest that is not described in the
>   log header.  In theory code could hardcode information about
>   digest IDs already assigned by TCG, but if firmware authors
>   cannot get event log format right, why should anyone believe
>   that they got event log content right.


I have to say that I really didn't what this change is doing after
reading these. I only undestood what this commit is doing by reading
the code change.

So we have a constant for banks and you are reading the number of banks
from the event to make it more dynamic? Why it requires such a complicated 
explanation? And what is your short summary trying to say?

/Jarkko

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
tpmdd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel

Reply via email to