On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 17:22 +0300, Roberto Sassu wrote: > Adding to the discussion Jarkko (the maintainer of the trusted key) and > the linux-integrity mailing list. I'm a co-maintainer (added James and Mimi). > > some people (including me) have problems with the "trusted" kernel module. > > As a result to this also the ecryptfs-module won't load. > > (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/62678) > > If you use an "inactive" TPM module, the "trusted" module won't load > > anymore. > > The command modprobe just responds with "Bad address". > > The strace-command shows that init_module fails with EFAULT. > > I believe the reason for this is that the trusted-module handles > > inactive modules the same as active modules. > > This results in an error. > > > > For example: > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/0b6cf6b97b7ef1fa3c7fefab0cac897a1c4a3400#diff-c01228e6d386afb29df6aac17d9dd7abR1251 > > > > My guess is that init_digests(); returns EFAULT in that case. > > The " if (!chip)" check above probably needs to check if the chip is > > "inactive". > > > > "inactive" = still visible to the system, but not functional. > > It seems to be the default bios-setting for TPM on thinkpad. > > (btw.: i have no clue why anybody would need something like that) > > > > Sadly i have no idea how you would check for an inactive chip,else i > > would have send a patch instead. > > But I hope the info i wrote is enough to get it fixed by somebody. > > Thanks for the report. If you see -EFAULT, tpm_get_random() is probably > returning 0. > > Jarkko, we could consider it as non-critical error, and handle it as if > the TPM is not found. What do you think? Not sure I get this. Wasn't the issue fixed in c78719203fc6 or is there something missing? /Jarkko
