On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:24:21AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 14:33 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > Will this delay the TPM initialization, causing IMA to go into "TPM > > > > bypass mode"? > > > > > > Of course it will delay the init. > > > > > > As I've stated before the real fix for the bypass issue would be > > > to make TPM as part of the core but this has not received much > > > appeal. I think I've sent patch for this once. > > IMA initialization is way later than the TPM. IMA is on the > late_initcall(), while the TPM is on the subsys_initcall(). I'm not > sure moving the TPM to core would make a difference. There must be a > way of deferring IMA until after the TPM has been initialized. Any > suggestions would be much appreciated. > > (The TPM on the Pi still has a dependency on clock.) Right. I seriously need to study IMA code in near future with time. > > It has been like that people reject a fix to a race condition and > > then I get complains on adding minor latency to the init because > > of the existing race. It is ridicilous, really. > > I agree, but adding any latency will cause a regression. OK, I get the picture here now. I have to some day look at the IMA code and see if I could draft something that would improve the situation. Thanks for explaining all this! /Jarkko
