Re: [PATCH] tpm: return a TPM_RC_COMMAND_CODE response if a command isn't implemented

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

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 <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
> 
> 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".

Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

/Jarkko