Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v6 0/2] enhance TPM 2.0 extend function to support multiple PCR banks

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:08:55PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 01/25/2017 03:45 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:05:11PM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote:
> > > IMA extends its hash measurements in the TPM PCRs, based on policy.
> > > The existing in-kernel TPM extend function extends only the SHA1
> > > PCR bank. TPM 2.0 defines multiple PCR banks, to support different
> > > hash algorithms. The TCG TPM 2.0 Specification[1] recommends
> > > extending all active PCR banks to prevent malicious users from
> > > setting unused PCR banks with fake measurements and quoting them.
> > > This patch set adds support for extending all active PCR banks,
> > > as recommended.
> > > 
> > > The first patch implements the TPM 2.0 capability to retrieve
> > > the list of active PCR banks.
> > > 
> > > The second patch modifies the tpm_pcr_extend() and tpm2_pcr_extend()
> > > interface to support extending multiple PCR banks. The existing
> > > tpm_pcr_extend() interface expects only a SHA1 digest. Hence, to
> > > extend all active PCR banks with differing digest sizes for TPM 2.0,
> > > the SHA1 digest is padded with 0's as needed.
> > > 
> > > [1] TPM 2.0 Specification referred here is "TCG PC Client Specific
> > > Platform Firmware Profile for TPM 2.0"
> > I pushed these patches. I had to resolve merge conflicts caused
> > by the min_rsp_body_length parameter in tpm_transmit_cmd. Can you
> > verify that I didn't break anything?
> 
> It looks like this hunk here got into the wrong patch:
> 
> @@ -1061,7 +1068,7 @@ ssize_t tpm2_get_pcr_allocation(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>         tpm_buf_append_u32(&buf, 0);
>         tpm_buf_append_u32(&buf, 1);
> 
> -       rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, PAGE_SIZE, 0,
> +       rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, PAGE_SIZE, 9, 0,
>                               "get tpm pcr allocation");
>         if (rc < 0)
>                 goto out;

Thanks. I'll eventually fix this before sending the next pull request.

/Jarkko