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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 7A003C47255 for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 17:29:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6742184D for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 17:29:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727100AbgEHR3y (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2020 13:29:54 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:7586 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726767AbgEHR3x (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2020 13:29:53 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 048H2EhP128834; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:29:43 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30vtsgud79-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 08 May 2020 13:29:42 -0400 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 048HTCHp116150; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:29:42 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30vtsgud61-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 08 May 2020 13:29:42 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 048H4rFB032591; Fri, 8 May 2020 17:29:40 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 30s0g5wtd9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 08 May 2020 17:29:39 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 048HTbZO44695568 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 8 May 2020 17:29:37 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8924A405B; Fri, 8 May 2020 17:29:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8765EA4054; Fri, 8 May 2020 17:29:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.139.55]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 8 May 2020 17:29:36 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <1588958976.5146.83.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] ima: Switch to ima_hash_algo for boot aggregate From: Mimi Zohar To: Jerry Snitselaar Cc: Roberto Sassu , James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell , Madhuparna Bhowmik Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 13:29:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200508045410.t7gawyklyecupe2u@cantor> References: <20200325104712.25694-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <20200325104712.25694-2-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <1585871617.7311.5.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20200508045410.t7gawyklyecupe2u@cantor> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216,18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-08_15:2020-05-08,2020-05-08 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2005080142 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 21:54 -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Thu Apr 02 20, Mimi Zohar wrote: > >Hi Roberto, > > > >On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 11:47 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > >> boot_aggregate is the first entry of IMA measurement list. Its purpose is > >> to link pre-boot measurements to IMA measurements. As IMA was designed to > >> work with a TPM 1.2, the SHA1 PCR bank was always selected even if a > >> TPM 2.0 with support for stronger hash algorithms is available. > >> > >> This patch first tries to find a PCR bank with the IMA default hash > >> algorithm. If it does not find it, it selects the SHA256 PCR bank for > >> TPM 2.0 and SHA1 for TPM 1.2. Ultimately, it selects SHA1 also for TPM 2.0 > >> if the SHA256 PCR bank is not found. > >> > >> If none of the PCR banks above can be found, boot_aggregate file digest is > >> filled with zeros, as for TPM bypass, making it impossible to perform a > >> remote attestation of the system. > >> > >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.1.x > >> Fixes: 879b589210a9 ("tpm: retrieve digest size of unknown algorithms with PCR read") > >> Reported-by: Jerry Snitselaar > >> Suggested-by: James Bottomley > >> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu > > > >Thank you!  This patch set is now queued in next-integrity-testing > >during the open window.  Jerry, I assume this works for you.  Could we > >get your tag? > > > > Yes, I no longer get the errors with this patch. > > > Tested-by: Jerry Snitselaar Thanks, Jerry. I really do appreciate receiving your tag. Not all, but a lot of subsystems, do not rebase their branch, at least once it is in linux-next.  Adding tags is considered rebasing.  For this reason, I've started staging patches in the next-integrity- testing branch, before moving them to next-integrity. thanks, Mimi