dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot: Refactor TPM version and support … #507

SebastianCzapla · 2024-09-18T10:49:48Z

…tests

Currently, TPM Support and TPM Version test are split into different tests groups. Merging of version and support checks into one allows us to skip few extra reboot cycles during testing. Additionally, it provides opportunity to add coverage for TPM 1.2

miczyg1 · 2024-09-18T11:18:13Z

It is not entirely redundant. See: #495 (comment)

The test to verify TPM version in firmware should check if it is TPM 1.2 or 2.0

SebastianCzapla · 2024-09-25T11:59:47Z

This branch was rebased onto this #487
Here's a log from dasharo-security test suite run with this patch applied.

dasharo-security.tar.gz

miczyg1 · 2024-09-26T14:18:41Z

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot

@@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ TPM001.001 TPM Support (firmware)
    Login To Linux
    Switch To Root User
    Get Cbmem From Cloud
-    ${out}=    Execute Command In Terminal    cbmem -L
-    Should Contain    ${out}    TPM2 log
+    ${out}=    Execute Command In Terminal    cbmem -1 | grep -E 'TPM2 detected| TCPA log'


Previously it was cbmem -L not cbmem -1. Not sure if this will work as intended. because the first checks for some output in EDK2, and second is probably checking the event log created by coreboot? Anyway, such inconsistent checks are not something that we would like to have.

Also there is a space before TCPA log which may affect the grep

I have experienced segfault with cbmem -L on TPM 1.2 platforms.

Here's an ending of cbmem -L log:

TCPA log entry 16: PCR: 2127990177 Event type: Unknown (0xc8a02c0e >= 19) Digest: 4b204bba40ce87b9d818753c5f8d08181f480e6f Event data: 7022cce803e7262d8852d03c0d0d21d80b28bd303b8b3a1b8649db978858e3f26abdbe9fba5cfa70667c936c2c2531cc0322876c26a5348c0102ee5592b96e822c054cdfc3fcc62078545d9c827d7ef9e58a8864e8014bc7ff15fa1351ba979a11[...]

The log actually continues as 300kB+ dump of random numbers, which ends at some point with a segfault.
Here's a little info that dmesg gives:

[ 1499.410096] cbmem[5238]: segfault at 7b35459d2000 ip 0000603bad38cdeb sp 00007fff858301f0 error 4 in cbmem[603bad38b000+4000] likely on CPU 2 (core 2, socket 0) [ 1499.410111] Code: 3d f6 ff ff 48 8d 0d 14 58 00 00 ba ab 05 00 00 48 8d 35 e7 22 00 00 48 8d 3d 8d 24 00 00 e8 dc e5 ff ff 31 c9 31 c0 41 89 ce <0f> b6 54 05 00 4c 89 ee bf 01 00 00 00 31 c0 e8 a1 e6 ff ff 41 8d

cbmem -1 works no problem on both 1.2 and 2.0 platforms.

Within cbmem -1 logs, I have found a point which could be checked against for these TPM support cases:
For TPM 1.2 (coreboot TPM 1.2 measurements)

[DEBUG] TPM: Digest of `CBFS: fallback/payload` to PCR 2 measured [DEBUG] Checking segment from ROM address 0xffc608ac [DEBUG] Checking segment from ROM address 0xffc608c8 [DEBUG] Loading segment from ROM address 0xffc608ac [DEBUG] code (compression=1) [DEBUG] New segment dstaddr 0x00800000 memsize 0xe00000 srcaddr 0xffc608e4 filesize 0x151bb6 [DEBUG] Loading Segment: addr: 0x00800000 memsz: 0x0000000000e00000 filesz: 0x0000000000151bb6 [DEBUG] using LZMA [DEBUG] Loading segment from ROM address 0xffc608c8 [DEBUG] Entry Point 0x00800850 [DEBUG] BS: BS_PAYLOAD_LOAD run times (exec / console): 1312 / 83 ms [INFO ] coreboot TPM 1.2 measurements: [INFO ] PCR-2 cf11730b6290e3ad42e0753f436edfe1612ec0fc SHA1 [FMAP: FMAP] [INFO ] PCR-2 801df4236e0c7bdd1f980c4b45c7c19cc18282d8 SHA1 [CBFS: bootblock] [INFO ] PCR-2 c1922cd3de966dc40257073496ae306ee0ffa1f6 SHA1 [CBFS: cmos.default] [INFO ] PCR-2 9baee5f388d903d5b72e20697209cfa67a724e44 SHA1 [CBFS: fallback/romstage] [INFO ] PCR-2 fd2b3cf1bd64b3928ffc916d7799c76e5fa96de0 SHA1 [CBFS: cmos_layout.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 9cc3514487871b14663e7ba29efc6fec5fed7c76 SHA1 [CBFS: sch5545_ecfw.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 48d7b91079795aae8b7082b76c10e3ca03520bad SHA1 [CBFS: fallback/postcar] [INFO ] PCR-2 8efffbbf487c06d4328ce4fbba2314554f2a2925 SHA1 [CBFS: cpu_microcode_blob.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 ea3f3ba2449d59b7cf13ee645d640ba6a018acad SHA1 [CBFS: vbt.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 931a1ae3cd1cb7c815b2ebfd57bb6508e15d5edf SHA1 [CBFS: txt_bios_acm.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 b6e1865a9e3127b0ea67bdff6dbf33dd0235314b SHA1 [CBFS: txt_sinit_acm.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 931a1ae3cd1cb7c815b2ebfd57bb6508e15d5edf SHA1 [CBFS: txt_bios_acm.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 d599814817d3b807dfb4abc462b4606fac62b4c9 SHA1 [CBFS: fallback/dsdt.aml] [INFO ] PCR-2 fd2b3cf1bd64b3928ffc916d7799c76e5fa96de0 SHA1 [CBFS: cmos_layout.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 d765e221f11f8c0233e5807ce37ae83fe6705346 SHA1 [CBFS: fallback/payload] [DEBUG] BS: BS_PAYLOAD_BOOT entry times (exec / console): 0 / 128 ms [DEBUG] ICH-NM10-PCH: watchdog disabled [DEBUG] Jumping to boot code at 0x00800850(0x7fb48000)

and for TPM 2.0

[DEBUG] using LZMA [SPEW ] [ 0x00800000, 01600000, 0x01600000) <- ff86c590 [DEBUG] Loading segment from ROM address 0xff86c574 [DEBUG] Entry Point 0x00800860 [SPEW ] Loaded segments [DEBUG] BS: BS_PAYLOAD_LOAD run times (exec / console): 380 / 0 ms [INFO ] coreboot skipped calling FSP notify phase: 00000040. [INFO ] coreboot skipped calling FSP notify phase: 000000f0. [INFO ] coreboot TCPA measurements: [INFO ] PCR-2 1be8f33e0df7790491fa72960da3ed0ebbe73362c2803cf014169837e3fe097e SHA256 [FMAP: FMAP] [INFO ] PCR-2 51cf039e2ca217e8718625815929e3d053287160a08d8f3ef380631a356546cf SHA256 [CBFS: bootblock] [INFO ] PCR-2 32a677bcb45f59b452250d2692ba0fd5623fae9d49899868f3260b2e27bcbb0a SHA256 [CBFS: fallback/romstage] [INFO ] PCR-2 5e8e90f12f4804625a0937d91fbe65210fdb60a0989e318cf91288a4b2bc1086 SHA256 [CBFS: fspm.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 9cc5f1dadf78d07a3879a756b9d4a8f3f0e7b269bc6b8a12ad4da329c1e79c4d SHA256 [CBFS: fallback/postcar] [INFO ] PCR-2 a3f0752ce30dbadd95e5c16e85f29a339c049bea506db905ae1a086b94b68895 SHA256 [CBFS: fallback/ramstage] [INFO ] PCR-2 90fe3367f6d5b14a7e4362a9bda859f302946db9dacbb02e240195969caecb1f SHA256 [CBFS: cpu_microcode_blob.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 5bf36bb2f18b2623c16dd48977e761d185d4bfe34aa87e636250990982ee1233 SHA256 [CBFS: fsps.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 59e0fad23a73f0c5765206f3be5521825ff26850587c18268b7617ff4078f515 SHA256 [CBFS: vbt.bin] [INFO ] PCR-2 f034cbb27726e2f59a75115a822b1ec989548811361280ad0c3a064ebd30fea4 SHA256 [CBFS: fallback/dsdt.aml] [INFO ] PCR-2 97650b169e466d377f62d6f6ca7b6ffd6a881b46645b6e7a2ff65ef890a746e5 SHA256 [CBFS: fallback/payload] [DEBUG] Finalizing chipset. [DEBUG] apm_control: Finalizing SMM.

Do these coreboot TPM/TCPA measurement lines make sense as targets for grep?

I have experienced segfault with cbmem -L on TPM 1.2 platforms.

Looks like a bug in cbmem or coreboot

Do these coreboot TPM/TCPA measurement lines make sense as targets for grep?

Relying on either coreboot TPM 1.2 measurements or coreboot TCPA measurements is not the right choice.

First, it is merely a print which may say anything, but it doesn't say which format is used or what TPM is really used. It just says what it tried to extend the PCRs with some values.

Secondly TCPA measurements and TPM1.2 measurements is equivalent per TPM specification.

If anything one could use the other prints to check for TPM version:

UEFI Payload prints TpmVersion: 0x2 or Tcg2ConfigPeimEntryPoint: TPM2 detected when a TPM2.0 is connected.

coreboot prints Found TPM SLB9670 TT 2.0 by Infineon on laptops. But on any other platform it may be different depending on the TPM chip used. So it is not a generic method of detecting TPM version.

When using UEFI Payload, one may enter setup then enter Device Manager and then check which TP msetup is present:

for TPM 2.0 it will be TCG2 Configuration

for TPM 1.2 it will be TCG Configuration

Changed the detection to use Device Manager to look for menu entries.

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot

SebastianCzapla · 2024-10-15T14:47:57Z

Updated and rebased as per suggestions.
Using Setup Menu to detect TPM has a tradeoff, it no longer is automated test for laptop testing. Is this an acceptable tradeoff? @miczyg1

Also, when testing this solution, I found an issue with OptiPlex platform Dasharo/dasharo-issues#1091

miczyg1 · 2024-10-16T08:16:12Z

Updated and rebased as per suggestions. Using Setup Menu to detect TPM has a tradeoff, it no longer is automated test for laptop testing. Is this an acceptable tradeoff? @miczyg1

Also, when testing this solution, I found an issue with OptiPlex platform Dasharo/dasharo-issues#1091

I gave you 3 options and it looks like you chose maybe the worst one. Of course this is not a good tradeoff from laptops perspective. But, was this test even being run on laptops if it only supports SSH tests over OS?

Looks like option 1 is the best, but again it would be limited to UEFI payload only.

Option 2 is the best since it uses coreboot log alone to determine the TPM chip. Based on the TPM chip we may derive what TPM version it is. But this requires the most work.

SebastianCzapla · 2024-11-28T15:36:52Z

Made a change to use TPM chip as a base for validation. I also kept old log based detection, as a fallback mechanism in case chip detection fails (it happens on Optiplex due to log truncation). Should there be a warning that this mechanism was used? At the moment it only logs to console.

Some TPM variables for various platforms are not set, but I tested it on few laptops and it seems to work correctly.

filipleple · 2024-12-06T17:21:01Z

Overall seems good, managed to get it to pass on OptiPlex with SeaBIOS (minus the network-related fails, which are a separate issue)

==============================================================================
Tpm-Support
==============================================================================
TPM001.001 TPM Support (firmware) :: This test aims to verify that... ......
Chip detection failed, attempting cbmem log detection

TPM001.001 TPM Support (firmware) :: This test aims to verify that... | FAIL |
Keyword 'Check Internet Connection On Linux' failed after retrying 5 times. The last error was: 'ping: g
oogle-public-dns-a.google.com: Temporary failure in name resolution' does not contain ', 0% packet loss'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPM001.002 TPM Support (Ubuntu) :: Check whether the TPM is initia... | FAIL |
AttributeError: module 'requests.exceptions' has no attribute 'ProtocolError'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPM001.003 TPM Support (Windows) :: Check whether the TPM is initi... | SKIP |
TPM001.003 not supported
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPM002.001 Verify TPM version (firmware) :: This test aims to veri... ......
Chip detection failed, attempting cbmem log detection

TPM002.001 Verify TPM version (firmware) :: This test aims to veri... | FAIL |
Keyword 'Check Internet Connection On Linux' failed after retrying 5 times. The last error was: 'ping: g
oogle-public-dns-a.google.com: Temporary failure in name resolution' does not contain ', 0% packet loss'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPM002.002 Verify TPM version (Ubuntu) :: This test aims to verify... | PASS |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPM002.003 Verify TPM version (Windows) :: This test aims to verif... | SKIP |
TPM002.003 not supported
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPM003.001 Check TPM Physical Presence Interface (firmware) :: Thi... | FAIL |
Keyword 'Check Internet Connection On Linux' failed after retrying 5 times. The last error was: 'ping: g
oogle-public-dns-a.google.com: Temporary failure in name resolution' does not contain ', 0% packet loss'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPM003.002 Check TPM Physical Presence Interface (Ubuntu) :: This ... | PASS |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPM003.003 Check TPM Physical Presence Interface (Windows) :: This... | SKIP |
TPM003.003 not supported
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the asset has been checkout manually by you prior running this script, it will NOT be checked in a
utomatically. Please return the device when work is finished.
Tpm-Support                                                           | FAIL |
9 tests, 2 passed, 4 failed, 3 skipped
==============================================================================

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot

filipleple · 2024-12-06T16:51:41Z

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot

@@ -101,7 +103,7 @@ TPM003.001 Check TPM Physical Presence Interface (firmware)
    ...    Interface is supported by the firmware.


a/a, not a firmware check it seems

pietrushnic · 2024-12-08T21:20:26Z

@macpijan, does this PR get some benefits of #574 ?

SebastianCzapla · 2024-12-11T11:26:28Z

dasharo-security.zip

Rebased and tested on Protectli vp3230

miczyg1

The tests will stop working on laptops right? AS per #507 (comment)

Would be best to check cbmem log for a particular TPM model printed by coreboot (not edk2)

…tests This commit introduces two new variables, EXPECTED_TPM_CHIP and EXPECTED_TPM_VERSION. Additionally, refactor few keywords and tests within tpm-support.robot Signed-off-by: Sebastian Czapla <[email protected]>

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch 2 times, most recently from 83272db to e8086e0 Compare September 18, 2024 10:57

SebastianCzapla mentioned this pull request Sep 18, 2024

dasharo-security/tpm-support: duplicate tests covering the same functionality #495

Open

SebastianCzapla mentioned this pull request Sep 24, 2024

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot: Add coverage for TPM 1.2 #487

Merged

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch 2 times, most recently from 8534884 to 12b0d62 Compare September 25, 2024 09:35

SebastianCzapla marked this pull request as ready for review September 25, 2024 09:36

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch 2 times, most recently from 98700f0 to 5b01d14 Compare September 25, 2024 10:03

SebastianCzapla requested review from miczyg1 and krystian-hebel September 25, 2024 12:37

miczyg1 reviewed Sep 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

miczyg1 reviewed Sep 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

miczyg1 requested changes Sep 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch from 5b01d14 to 31bc60d Compare September 30, 2024 14:00

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch 4 times, most recently from 8bab4c2 to a5c2700 Compare October 15, 2024 14:44

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch 2 times, most recently from 0e885b2 to 39fc118 Compare November 13, 2024 13:29

miczyg1 mentioned this pull request Nov 26, 2024

TPM003.004 Test should be documented and implemented in OSFV #568

Open

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch 2 times, most recently from 40a9e27 to 4550b3a Compare November 28, 2024 15:34

filipleple requested changes Dec 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

filipleple assigned SebastianCzapla Dec 6, 2024

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch from 4550b3a to 62ff978 Compare December 11, 2024 10:18

SebastianCzapla requested review from filipleple and miczyg1 December 11, 2024 11:27

filipleple approved these changes Dec 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

miczyg1 requested changes Dec 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch from 62ff978 to 936e39a Compare December 18, 2024 15:03

SebastianCzapla force-pushed the tpm_version_support_refactor branch from 936e39a to 765f7ba Compare December 18, 2024 15:48

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot: Refactor TPM version and support … #507

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot: Refactor TPM version and support … #507

SebastianCzapla commented Sep 18, 2024

miczyg1 commented Sep 18, 2024

SebastianCzapla commented Sep 25, 2024

miczyg1 Sep 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

miczyg1 Sep 26, 2024

SebastianCzapla Sep 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

miczyg1 Oct 7, 2024

miczyg1 Oct 7, 2024

SebastianCzapla Oct 15, 2024

SebastianCzapla commented Oct 15, 2024

miczyg1 commented Oct 16, 2024

SebastianCzapla commented Nov 28, 2024

filipleple commented Dec 6, 2024

filipleple Dec 6, 2024

pietrushnic commented Dec 8, 2024

SebastianCzapla commented Dec 11, 2024

miczyg1 left a comment

		@@ -101,7 +103,7 @@ TPM003.001 Check TPM Physical Presence Interface (firmware)
		... Interface is supported by the firmware.

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot: Refactor TPM version and support … #507

Are you sure you want to change the base?

dasharo-security/tpm-support.robot: Refactor TPM version and support … #507

Conversation

SebastianCzapla commented Sep 18, 2024

miczyg1 commented Sep 18, 2024

SebastianCzapla commented Sep 25, 2024

miczyg1 Sep 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

miczyg1 Sep 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SebastianCzapla Sep 30, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

miczyg1 Oct 7, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

miczyg1 Oct 7, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SebastianCzapla Oct 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SebastianCzapla commented Oct 15, 2024

miczyg1 commented Oct 16, 2024

SebastianCzapla commented Nov 28, 2024

filipleple commented Dec 6, 2024

filipleple Dec 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pietrushnic commented Dec 8, 2024

SebastianCzapla commented Dec 11, 2024

miczyg1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

miczyg1 Sep 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

SebastianCzapla Sep 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading