[PATCH v5 0/5] Lazy flush for the auth session
Jarkko Sakkinen
jarkko at kernel.org
Sat Oct 12 10:56:07 UTC 2024
On Fri, 2024-10-11 at 19:25 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-10-11 at 18:10 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > Initially, I thought that maybe it would not be good to have an
> > event
> > log with unmodified and altered measurement entries. Then, I tried
> > to
> > think if we can really prevent an active interposer from injecting
> > arbitrary PCR extends and pretending that those events actually
> > happened.
> >
> > If I understood James's cover letter correctly, the kernel can
> > detect
> > whether a TPM reset occurred, but not that a PCR extend occurred
> > (maybe
> > with a shadow PCR?).
>
> We can detect TPM reset indirectly. I.e. null seed re-randomizes
> per reset.
>
> >
> > Second point, do we really want to take the responsibility to
> > disable
> > the protection on behalf of users? Maybe a better choice is to let
> > them
> > consciously disable HMAC protection.
>
> So when IMA is not used already with these fixes we get good
> results. And for tpm2_get_random() we can make the algorithm
> smarter. All in all we have good path ongoing for "desktop
> use case" that I would keep thing way there are or at least
> postpone any major decisions just a bit.
>
> For server/IMA use case I'll add a boot parameter it can be
> either on or off by default, I will state that in the commit
> message and we'll go from there.
Up until legit fixes are place distributors can easily disable
the feature. It would be worse if TCG_TPM2_HMAC did not exist.
So I think it is better to focus on doing right things right,
since the feature itself is useful objectively, and make sure
that those fixes bring the wanted results.
BR, Jarkko
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list