On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:40:50PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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: > > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:11:04PM -0700, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > 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.
Right, of course, vtpm_tpm_proxy. /Jarkko
