-----Original Message-----
From: Lee, Terry <terry.lee@hpe.com>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 1:32 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io;
stefanb@linux.ibm.com; lersek@redhat.com; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Zhang, Chao B
<chao.b.zhang@intel.com>; Marc-André Lureau
<marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] SecurityPkg/Tcg2PhysicalPresenceLib: Fix
incorrect TCG VER comparision

Jiewen,

I have only PP1.3 configuration. The only WHCK test failure is a known
Windows issue that I believe is unrelated to PP.

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: Yao, Jiewen [mailto:jiewen.yao@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:31 PM
To: Lee, Terry <terry.lee@hpe.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io;
stefanb@linux.ibm.com; lersek@redhat.com; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Zhang, Chao B
<chao.b.zhang@intel.com>; Marc-André Lureau
<marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] SecurityPkg/Tcg2PhysicalPresenceLib: Fix
incorrect TCG VER comparision

Thanks Terry.
I tend to give R-B. I read the code it seems no impact.

Would you please confirm you have tested both PP1.2 and PP1.3
configuration, with windows WHCK test pass?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee, Terry <terry.lee@hpe.com>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 10:25 AM
To: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io;
stefanb@linux.ibm.com; lersek@redhat.com; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Zhang, Chao B
<chao.b.zhang@intel.com>; Marc-André Lureau
<marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] SecurityPkg/Tcg2PhysicalPresenceLib:
Fix incorrect TCG VER comparision

Jiewen,

I tested this patch on HPE Superdome Flex with both Linux and Windows.

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: Yao, Jiewen [mailto:jiewen.yao@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:09 PM
To: Lee, Terry <terry.lee@hpe.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io;
stefanb@linux.ibm.com; lersek@redhat.com; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Zhang, Chao B
<chao.b.zhang@intel.com>; Marc-André Lureau
<marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] SecurityPkg/Tcg2PhysicalPresenceLib:
Fix incorrect TCG VER comparision

Hello
Is there any one can share the information on what test has been done
for this ?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee, Terry <terry.lee@hpe.com>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 12:59 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; stefanb@linux.ibm.com; lersek@redhat.com;
Gao, Zhichao <zhichao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Wang, Jian J
<jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Zhang, Chao B <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>;
Marc- André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] SecurityPkg/Tcg2PhysicalPresenceLib:
Fix incorrect TCG VER comparision

Could the package maintainer merge this patch? Thanks.

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Berger [mailto:stefanb@linux.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 7:27 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@redhat.com; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Lee, Terry <terry.lee@hpe.com>; Yao, Jiewen
<jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Zhang,
Chao B <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>; Marc-André Lureau
<marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] SecurityPkg/Tcg2PhysicalPresenceLib:
Fix incorrect TCG VER comparision

On 7/10/20 9:53 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:

On 7/10/20 1:43 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

(+Marc-André, Stefan)

On 07/10/20 02:44, Gao, Zhichao wrote:

This bug is not obeserved by me. But I view the code. The
condition is incorrect and it would affect the TCG operation:
if (!mIsTcg2PPVerLowerThan_1_3) {
if (OperationRequest <
TCG2_PHYSICAL_PRESENCE_VENDOR_SPECIFIC_OPERATION) {
//
// TCG2 PP1.3 spec defined operations that are
reserved or un-implemented
//
return

TCG_PP_GET_USER_CONFIRMATION_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;

}
} else {
//
// TCG PP lower than 1.3. (1.0, 1.1, 1.2)
//
if (OperationRequest <=
TCG2_PHYSICAL_PRESENCE_NO_ACTION_MAX) {
RequestConfirmed = TRUE;
} else if (OperationRequest <
TCG2_PHYSICAL_PRESENCE_VENDOR_SPECIFIC_OPERATION) {
return

TCG_PP_GET_USER_CONFIRMATION_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;

}
}

I've found that code myself, but I'm not familiar enough with TPM
PPI stuff to understand immediately the effects of this change. I
can see that where we used to return
TCG_PP_GET_USER_CONFIRMATION_NOT_IMPLEMENTED before, we

could now

assign "RequestConfirmed = TRUE", and vice versa, due to
"mIsTcg2PPVerLowerThan_1_3" being potentially inverted.

But what does that *mean*? What is the behavioral change that
human end-users, or software components, will experience?

The above code snipped is located in a default branch of a large
switch statement that handles most of the common PPI operations
independent of this change, so that at least is good.

I would say that in the worst case some of the operations not
otherwise handled may have mistakenly failed or could have been
executed without user confirmation/interaction. On Linux at least
PPI requests can only be sent by root.

I am running a somewhat dated version of edk2 (Fedora 31). The
operations advertised are: 0,5,14,21,22,23,24,33,96,97. All of these
are individually handled in the switch statement, so there should no
be any impact. I am currently not aware of whether this list can be
extended with some sort of module.

Thanks
Laszlo

So I think it should be fixed.

Thanks,
Zhichao

-----Original Message-----
From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
Laszlo Ersek
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 6:02 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Zhichao <zhichao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Terry Lee <terry.lee@hpe.com>; Yao, Jiewen
<jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>;
Zhang, Chao B <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH]
SecurityPkg/Tcg2PhysicalPresenceLib: Fix incorrect TCG VER
comparision

On 07/09/20 04:46, Gao, Zhichao wrote:

From: Terry Lee <terry.lee@hpe.com>

REF:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugzilla.
ti
an
ocore.org_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid-

3D2697&d=DwIDaQ&c=C5b8zRQO1miGmBeVZ2

LFWg&r=Jlc0Jxr620EZ-

CppyrjGotnxH9DrT0KvwcLjekZ9Dow&m=WPv3vn5VEelRC

s-

W8pfNM00wMOfpKBesXnAhRfylF7g&s=iFUYthUCfHLeeQAvr_OhTPHTiA9hZvw

48

Bj8YhXhQAI&e=

Tcg2PhysicalPresenceLibConstructor set the module variable
mIsTcg2PPVerLowerThan_1_3 with incorrect TCG version

comparision.

Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhichao Gao <zhichao.gao@intel.com>
---
.../SmmTcg2PhysicalPresenceLib/SmmTcg2PhysicalPresenceLib.c |
2

+-

1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git

a/SecurityPkg/Library/SmmTcg2PhysicalPresenceLib/SmmTcg2PhysicalPr

esen

ceLib.c

b/SecurityPkg/Library/SmmTcg2PhysicalPresenceLib/SmmTcg2PhysicalPr

esen

ceLib.c
index 1c46d5e69d..8afaa0a785 100644
---

a/SecurityPkg/Library/SmmTcg2PhysicalPresenceLib/SmmTcg2PhysicalPr

esen

ceLib.c
+++

b/SecurityPkg/Library/SmmTcg2PhysicalPresenceLib/SmmTcg2PhysicalPr

+++ esenceLib.c
@@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ Tcg2PhysicalPresenceLibConstructor ( {
EFI_STATUS Status;

- if (AsciiStrnCmp(PP_INF_VERSION_1_2, (CHAR8
*)PcdGetPtr(PcdTcgPhysicalPresenceInterfaceVer),
sizeof(PP_INF_VERSION_1_2) - 1) <= 0) {
+ if (AsciiStrnCmp(PP_INF_VERSION_1_2, (CHAR8
+*)PcdGetPtr(PcdTcgPhysicalPresenceInterfaceVer),
+ sizeof(PP_INF_VERSION_1_2) - 1) >= 0) {
mIsTcg2PPVerLowerThan_1_3 = TRUE;
}

What is the practical impact of this bug / fix?

Thanks
Laszlo