tpm: Make the TPM character devices non-seekable

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tpm: Make the TPM character devices non-seekable The TPM character devices expose a sequential command/response interface, but their open handlers leave FMODE_PREAD and FMODE_PWRITE enabled. After a command leaves a response pending, pread(fd, buf, 16, 0x1400) passes 0x1400 as *off to tpm_common_read(). The transfer length is bounded by response_length, but the offset is used unchecked when forming data_buffer + *off. A sufficiently large offset therefore causes an out-of-bounds heap read through copy_to_user() and, if the copy succeeds, an out-of-bounds zero-write through the following memset(). Positional I/O does not provide coherent semantics for this interface. An arbitrary pread offset cannot represent how much of a response has been consumed sequentially. The write callback always stores a command at the start of data_buffer, while pwrite() does not update file->f_pos and can leave the sequential read cursor stale. Call nonseekable_open() from both open handlers. This removes FMODE_PREAD and FMODE_PWRITE, causing positional reads and writes to fail with -ESPIPE before reaching the TPM callbacks, and explicitly marks the files non-seekable. Normal read() and write() continue to use the existing sequential f_pos cursor, leaving the response state machine unchanged. Tested on Linux 6.12 with KASAN and a swtpm TPM2 device: - sequential partial reads returned the complete response - pread() and preadv() with offset 0x1400 returned -ESPIPE - pwrite() and pwritev() with offset zero returned -ESPIPE - the pending response remained intact after the rejected operations - a subsequent normal command/response cycle completed normally - no KASAN report was produced.

The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.