From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E806C3F68F for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E212E20707 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727458AbgA3Qyt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:54:49 -0500 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([185.176.76.210]:2333 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727158AbgA3Qyt (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:54:49 -0500 Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7E2ADE11B50716DD3611; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:54:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fraeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.51) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:54:46 +0000 Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:54:46 +0100 Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:54:46 +0100 From: Roberto Sassu To: Mimi Zohar , "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" CC: Jerry Snitselaar , James Bottomley , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Silviu Vlasceanu Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/2] ima: support calculating the boot_aggregate based on different TPM banks Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3 2/2] ima: support calculating the boot_aggregate based on different TPM banks Thread-Index: AQHV14mgGDRCXCHq1UG77eo7NcEnk6gDa1eA Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:54:46 +0000 Message-ID: <1065c502840c4f66baed9a771f3f2409@huawei.com> References: <1580401363-5593-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <1580401363-5593-2-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1580401363-5593-2-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.220.96.108] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-integrity- > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Mimi Zohar > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 5:23 PM > To: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Jerry Snitselaar ; James Bottomley > ; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mimi Zohar > Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] ima: support calculating the boot_aggregate based > on different TPM banks > > Calculating the boot_aggregate attempts to read the TPM SHA1 bank, > assuming it is always enabled. With TPM 2.0 hash agility, TPM chips > could support multiple TPM PCR banks, allowing firmware to configure and > enable different banks. > > Instead of hard coding the TPM 2.0 bank hash algorithm used for calculating > the boot-aggregate, use the same hash algorithm for reading the TPM PCRs > as > for calculating the boot aggregate digest. Preference is given to the > configured IMA default hash algorithm. > > For TPM 1.2 SHA1 is the only supported hash algorithm. > > Reported-by: Jerry Snitselaar > Suggested-by: Roberto Sassu > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar > --- > security/integrity/ima/ima_crypto.c | 45 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_crypto.c > b/security/integrity/ima/ima_crypto.c > index 7967a6904851..a020aaefdea8 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_crypto.c > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_crypto.c > @@ -656,13 +656,34 @@ static void __init ima_pcrread(u32 idx, struct > tpm_digest *d) > pr_err("Error Communicating to TPM chip\n"); > } > > +static enum hash_algo get_hash_algo(const char *algname) > +{ > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < HASH_ALGO__LAST; i++) { > + if (strcmp(algname, hash_algo_name[i]) == 0) > + break; > + } > + > + return i; > +} > + > /* > - * Calculate the boot aggregate hash > + * The boot_aggregate is a cumulative hash over TPM registers 0 - 7. With > + * TPM 1.2 the boot_aggregate was based on reading the SHA1 PCRs, but > with > + * TPM 2.0 hash agility, TPM chips could support multiple TPM PCR banks, > + * allowing firmware to configure and enable different banks. > + * > + * Knowing which TPM bank is read to calculate the boot_aggregate digest > + * needs to be conveyed to a verifier. For this reason, use the same > + * hash algorithm for reading the TPM PCRs as for calculating the boot > + * aggregate digest as stored in the measurement list. > */ > static int __init ima_calc_boot_aggregate_tfm(char *digest, > struct crypto_shash *tfm) > { > struct tpm_digest d = { .alg_id = TPM_ALG_SHA1, .digest = {0} }; > + enum hash_algo crypto_id; > int rc; > u32 i; > SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(shash, tfm); > @@ -673,6 +694,28 @@ static int __init ima_calc_boot_aggregate_tfm(char > *digest, > if (rc != 0) > return rc; > > + crypto_id = get_hash_algo(crypto_shash_alg_name(tfm)); Wouldn't be better to determine the index of ima_tpm_chip->allocated_banks in patch 1/2 and pass that index here, to avoid another search? Roberto HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063 Managing Director: Li Peng, Li Jian, Shi Yanli