From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753680AbbJGLRS (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:17:18 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:63640 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752111AbbJGLRM (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:17:12 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,648,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="821326841" Message-ID: <1444216559.4716.0.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH 4/4] keys, trusted: seal/unseal with TPM 2.0 chips From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: "Fuchs, Andreas" Cc: "tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Howells , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" , "open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" , James Morris , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , "josh@joshtripplet.org" , "richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com" , "monty.wiseman@intel.com" , "will.c.arthur@intel.com" , "artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com" Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:15:59 +0300 In-Reply-To: <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724D9D7B1EEE@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de> References: <20151005131733.GA4459@intel.com> <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724D9D7AEBD5@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de> <20151005135703.GA6196@intel.com> <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724D9D7AEC1D@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de> <20151005142800.GA7205@intel.com> <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724D9D7AF14E@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de> <20151006122644.GA22991@intel.com> <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724D9D7B056A@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de> <20151006150531.GA7075@intel.com> <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724D9D7B1E84@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de> ,<20151007102537.GA7261@intel.com> <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724D9D7B1EEE@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5-1ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 10:32 +0000, Fuchs, Andreas wrote: > > > > > > > I looked at Patch 3/4 and it seems you default to -EPERM > > > > > > > on TPM2_Create()- > > > > > > > and TPM2_Load()-failures ? > > > > > > > You might want to test against rc == TPM_RC_OBJECT_MEMORY > > > > > > > and return -EBUSY > > > > > > > in those cases. Would you agree ? > > > > > > > (P.S. I can cross-post there if that's prefered ?) > > > > > > > > > > > > Have to check the return values. I posted this patch set > > > > > > already in > > > > > > early July. You are the first reviewer in three months for > > > > > > this patch > > > > > > set. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the reason was that for TPM 1.x returned -EPERM in > > > > > > all error > > > > > > scenarios and I didn't want to endanger behaviour of > > > > > > command-line tools > > > > > > such as 'keyctl'. I would keep it that way unless you can > > > > > > guarantee that > > > > > > command-line tools will continue work correctly if I change > > > > > > it to > > > > > > -EBUSY. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I will recheck this part of the patch set but > > > > > > likely are not > > > > > > going to do any changes because I don't want to break the > > > > > > user space. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will consider revising the patch set with keyhandle > > > > > > required as an > > > > > > explicit option. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm... Will the old keyctl work without modification with the > > > > > 2.0 patches > > > > > anyways ? > > > > > > > > Yes it does and it should. I've been using keyctl utility to > > > > test my > > > > patch set. > > > > > > > > > The different keyHandle values and missing default keyHandle > > > > > will yield > > > > > "differences" anyways, I'd say. > > > > > IMHO, we should get it as correct as possible given that TPM > > > > > 2.0 is still > > > > > very young. > > > > > > > > > > Is adding "additional" ReturnCodes considered ABI > > > > > -incompatible breaking > > > > > anyways ? > > > > > > > > Yes they are if they make the user space utiltiy malfunction. > > > > > > AFAICT, keyctl just perror()s. Which is what I would have hoped. > > > So it guess it should work with -EBUSY. > > > Example-Trace of calls for key_adding: > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/keyutils.git/tree/key > > > utils.c#n43 > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/keyutils.git/tree/key > > > ctl.c#n379 > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/keyutils.git/tree/key > > > ctl.c#n131 > > > > > > Wish I could test it myself. > > > I understand, if you don't want to test my thoughts on this. > > > I just cannot perform the tests myself right now... :-( > > > > I would submit this change as a separate patch later anyway and not > > include it into this patch set. If it doesn't do harm it can be > > added > > later on. This patch set has been now in queue for three months so > > I > > only make modifications that are absolutely necessary. > > > > Changing keyhandle as mandatory option seems like such changes. > > This > > doesn't. > > Fine with me. > > P.S. do you have a git repo with all your queued and future patches > at HEAD ? In separate branches: https://github.com/jsakkine/linux-tpm2/branches > Cheers, > Andreas /Jarkko