On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:33:04AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> If a TPM2 loses power without a TPM2_Shutdown command being issued (a
> "disorderly reboot"), it may lose some state that has yet to be
> persisted to NVRam, and will increment the DA counter (eventually, this
> will cause the TPM to lock the user out.)
>
> NOTE: This only changes behavior on TPM2 devices. Since TPM1 uses sysfs,
> and sysfs relies on implicit locking on chip->ops, it is not safe to
> allow this code to run in TPM1, or to add sysfs support to TPM2, until
> that locking is made explicit.
>
> This patch is dependent on '[PATCH] Add "shutdown" to "struct class".'
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149463235025420&w=2
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Zimmerman <[email protected]>
>
> v2:
> - Properly split changes between this and another commit
> - Use proper locking primitive.
> - Fix commenting style
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
> index 9dec9f551b83..e0c4323876b8 100644
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
> @@ -142,6 +142,25 @@ static void tpm_devs_release(struct device *dev)
> put_device(&chip->dev);
> }
>
> +static void tpm_shutdown(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct tpm_chip *chip = container_of(dev, struct tpm_chip, dev);
> + /** TPM 2.0 requires that the TPM2_Shutdown() command be issued prior to
Single * for this comment
> + * loss of power. If it is not, the DA counter will be incremented and,
> + * eventually, the user will be locked out of their TPM.
> + * XXX: This codepath relies on the fact that sysfs is not enabled for
> + * TPM2: sysfs uses an implicit lock on chip->ops, so this use could
> + * race if TPM2 has sysfs support enabled before TPM sysfs's implicit
> + * locking is fixed.
> + */
> + if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) {
> + down_write(&chip->ops_sem);
> + tpm2_shutdown(chip, TPM_SU_CLEAR);
Would it be appropriate to now chain to the device_driver shutdown
in case any TPM-bus related shutdown is required?
We don't have any drivers that need that today though.
> void tpm_sysfs_add_device(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> {
> + // XXX: Before this restriction is removed, tpm_sysfs must be updated
> + // to explicitly lock chip->ops.
comment style again
Otherwise seems like a reasonable approach, we can fix the
TPM2-onlyness in later patches.
Jason
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
