On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 03:28:01PM -0700, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 03:16:13PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:11:04PM -0700, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

 	struct tpm_chip *chip = to_tpm_chip(dev);
+	char anti_replay[20];
 
-	tpm_cmd.header.in = tpm_readpubek_header;
-	err = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, NULL, &tpm_cmd, READ_PUBEK_RESULT_SIZE,
+	rc = tpm_buf_init(&tpm_buf, TPM_TAG_RQU_COMMAND, TPM_ORD_READPUBEK);
+	if (rc)
+		return rc;
+
+	/* The checksum is ignored so it doesn't matter what the contents are.
+	 */
+	tpm_buf_append(&tpm_buf, anti_replay, sizeof(anti_replay));

It does matter, we do not want to leak random kernel memory incase it
has something sensitive. Zero anti_replay.

If there was a leak it has existed before this change as tpm_cmd was
also allocated from stack. And there is not leak because the checksum is
not printed.

It leaks stack memory to the TPM which is not OK.

I think better idea would be to move struct tpm_readpubek_params_out
declaration here and use it to refer different fields. Previously
this

That would be better..

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html