Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1561876 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-18 16:10 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-01-22 21:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 27 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-18 16:10 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-19 12:00 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-19 13:30 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-20 14:40 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-20 22:10 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-21 20:30 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-22 16:00 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-21 21:50 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-22 16:00 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-22 18:50 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-22 19:50 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-22 21:40 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-22 22:10 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-22 22:40 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-23 15:10 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-23 17:20 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-24 13:10 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-23 18:00 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-23 22:50 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-23 23:20 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-25 14:50 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-25 14:50 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2017-01-27 03:00 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-27 07:50 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-25 21:30 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-22 22:10 +0100
Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-22 21:30 +0100
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-25 14:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t3w7w-2oz-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1565331 |
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:16:37PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 23:42 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:58:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 01:36:28PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 23:04 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01:07PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:30:55PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:48:12AM -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 09:49 -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now on
> > > > > > > > > > > top of
> > > > > > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > > branch that contains Stefan's latest patch (min
> > > > > > > > > > > body length
> > > > > > > > > > > check)
> > > > > > > > > > > that I've reviewed and tested. It also contains
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > > /dev/tpms patch.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are such
> > > > > > > > > > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > fairly good consensus, don't we? If so, can I add
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > reviewed-by
> > > > > > > > > > > and tested-by to my commits and vice versa?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We're still failing my test_transients. This is the
> > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > python of
> > > > > > > > > > the test case:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > def test_transients(self):
> > > > > > > > > > k = self.open_transients()
> > > > > > > > > > self.c.flush_context(k[0])
> > > > > > > > > > self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1], None,
> > > > > > > > > > pwd1)
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with
> > > > > > > > > > TPM_RC_VALUE.
> > > > > > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > > the same problem Ken complained about:
> > > > > > > > > > TPM2_FlushContext
> > > > > > > > > > doesn't have
> > > > > > > > > > a declared handle area so we don't translate the
> > > > > > > > > > handle being
> > > > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > down. We have to fix this either by intercepting the
> > > > > > > > > > flush
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > manually translating the context, or by being
> > > > > > > > > > dangerously
> > > > > > > > > > clever and
> > > > > > > > > > marking flush as a command which takes one handle.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is what the dangerously clever fix looks like.
> > > > > > > > > With this
> > > > > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > > few other changes, my smoke tests now pass.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > James
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't want to be clever here. I will rather intercept
> > > > > > > > the body
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > try to keep the core code simple and easy to understand.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It came out quite clean actually.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just encapsulated handle mapping and have this in the
> > > > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > tpm2_map_command:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if (cc == TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT)
> > > > > > > return tpm2_map_to_phandle(space,
> > > > > > > &cmd[TPM_HEADER_SIZE]);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this documents better what is actually going on
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > tinkering
> > > > > > > cc_attr_tbl.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /Jarkko
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually what you suggested is much better idea because it
> > > > > > will also
> > > > > > take care of validation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's why it's clever ... I'm just always wary of clever
> > > > > code
> > > > > because of the Kernighan principle.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm still going to keep tpm2_map_to_phandle because it makes
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > code flow a lot cleaner and probably sessions have to anyway
> > > > > > make it
> > > > > > even more complicated.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, there's one more thing that seems to be causing problems:
> > > > > when
> > > > > tpm2_save_context fails because the handle no longer exists
> > > > > (like it's
> > > > > been flushed) it returns TPM_RC_REFERENCE_H0 not TPM_RC_HANDLE
> > > > > (the
> > > > > session code does seem to return TPM_RC_HANDLE under some
> > > > > circumstances).
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > >
> > > > What is your way for reproducing this issue? Just want to add
> > > > a test case for my smoke test suite so that I can verify that
> > > > the issue is fixed once I've fixed it.
> > >
> > > Right. Too easy. Sorry about this. I'll push a fix for this to
> > > tabrm4 branch.
> >
> > 1. I pushed a fix to the repository.
>
> I don't think the fix is right; this is what you now have
>
> } else if ((rc & TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
> {
>
> That should be
>
> } else if (rc == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
Right I see your point.
And yes, also for RC_HANDLE the error handling was done incorrectly. It
should be masked like you said with 0xff to catch error number and the F
flag (bit 7).
As it is format zero error code it should be fine to check without any
mask.
Thanks for noting this. It is easy to shoot yourself into foot when
there's lot of stuff packed :-)
/Jarkko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-25 14:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t3w7w-2oz-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1566602 |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 03:40:04PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:16:37PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 23:42 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:58:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 01:36:28PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 23:04 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01:07PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:30:55PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:48:12AM -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 09:49 -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now on
> > > > > > > > > > > > top of
> > > > > > > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > > > branch that contains Stefan's latest patch (min
> > > > > > > > > > > > body length
> > > > > > > > > > > > check)
> > > > > > > > > > > > that I've reviewed and tested. It also contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > /dev/tpms patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are such
> > > > > > > > > > > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > fairly good consensus, don't we? If so, can I add
> > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > reviewed-by
> > > > > > > > > > > > and tested-by to my commits and vice versa?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We're still failing my test_transients. This is the
> > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > > python of
> > > > > > > > > > > the test case:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > def test_transients(self):
> > > > > > > > > > > k = self.open_transients()
> > > > > > > > > > > self.c.flush_context(k[0])
> > > > > > > > > > > self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1], None,
> > > > > > > > > > > pwd1)
> > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with
> > > > > > > > > > > TPM_RC_VALUE.
> > > > > > > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > > > the same problem Ken complained about:
> > > > > > > > > > > TPM2_FlushContext
> > > > > > > > > > > doesn't have
> > > > > > > > > > > a declared handle area so we don't translate the
> > > > > > > > > > > handle being
> > > > > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > > down. We have to fix this either by intercepting the
> > > > > > > > > > > flush
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > manually translating the context, or by being
> > > > > > > > > > > dangerously
> > > > > > > > > > > clever and
> > > > > > > > > > > marking flush as a command which takes one handle.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is what the dangerously clever fix looks like.
> > > > > > > > > > With this
> > > > > > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > > > few other changes, my smoke tests now pass.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > James
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't want to be clever here. I will rather intercept
> > > > > > > > > the body
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > try to keep the core code simple and easy to understand.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It came out quite clean actually.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just encapsulated handle mapping and have this in the
> > > > > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > tpm2_map_command:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if (cc == TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT)
> > > > > > > > return tpm2_map_to_phandle(space,
> > > > > > > > &cmd[TPM_HEADER_SIZE]);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think this documents better what is actually going on
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > tinkering
> > > > > > > > cc_attr_tbl.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /Jarkko
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually what you suggested is much better idea because it
> > > > > > > will also
> > > > > > > take care of validation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's why it's clever ... I'm just always wary of clever
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > because of the Kernighan principle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm still going to keep tpm2_map_to_phandle because it makes
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > code flow a lot cleaner and probably sessions have to anyway
> > > > > > > make it
> > > > > > > even more complicated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, there's one more thing that seems to be causing problems:
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > tpm2_save_context fails because the handle no longer exists
> > > > > > (like it's
> > > > > > been flushed) it returns TPM_RC_REFERENCE_H0 not TPM_RC_HANDLE
> > > > > > (the
> > > > > > session code does seem to return TPM_RC_HANDLE under some
> > > > > > circumstances).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > What is your way for reproducing this issue? Just want to add
> > > > > a test case for my smoke test suite so that I can verify that
> > > > > the issue is fixed once I've fixed it.
> > > >
> > > > Right. Too easy. Sorry about this. I'll push a fix for this to
> > > > tabrm4 branch.
> > >
> > > 1. I pushed a fix to the repository.
> >
> > I don't think the fix is right; this is what you now have
> >
> > } else if ((rc & TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
> > {
> >
> > That should be
> >
> > } else if (rc == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
>
> Right I see your point.
>
> And yes, also for RC_HANDLE the error handling was done incorrectly. It
> should be masked like you said with 0xff to catch error number and the F
> flag (bit 7).
>
> As it is format zero error code it should be fine to check without any
> mask.
>
> Thanks for noting this. It is easy to shoot yourself into foot when
> there's lot of stuff packed :-)
>
> /Jarkko
I think I actually add a helper to tpm.h to get the error number.
/Jarkko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-27 03:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> |
| Message-ID | <t43Zw-6oH-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1566602 |
On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 15:40 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:16:37PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 23:42 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:58:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 01:36:28PM -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 23:04 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01:07PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:30:55PM +0200, Jarkko
> > > > > > > > Sakkinen
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:48:12AM -0800, James
> > > > > > > > > Bottomley
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 09:49 -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko
> > > > > > > > > > > Sakkinen
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > top of
> > > > > > > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > > > branch that contains Stefan's latest patch (min
> > > > > > > > > > > > body length
> > > > > > > > > > > > check)
> > > > > > > > > > > > that I've reviewed and tested. It also contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > /dev/tpms patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are
> > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > fairly good consensus, don't we? If so, can I
> > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > reviewed-by
> > > > > > > > > > > > and tested-by to my commits and vice versa?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We're still failing my test_transients. This is
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > > python of
> > > > > > > > > > > the test case:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > def test_transients(self):
> > > > > > > > > > > k = self.open_transients()
> > > > > > > > > > > self.c.flush_context(k[0])
> > > > > > > > > > > self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1],
> > > > > > > > > > > None,
> > > > > > > > > > > pwd1)
> > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with
> > > > > > > > > > > TPM_RC_VALUE.
> > > > > > > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > > > the same problem Ken complained about:
> > > > > > > > > > > TPM2_FlushContext
> > > > > > > > > > > doesn't have
> > > > > > > > > > > a declared handle area so we don't translate the
> > > > > > > > > > > handle being
> > > > > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > > down. We have to fix this either by intercepting
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > flush
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > manually translating the context, or by being
> > > > > > > > > > > dangerously
> > > > > > > > > > > clever and
> > > > > > > > > > > marking flush as a command which takes one
> > > > > > > > > > > handle.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is what the dangerously clever fix looks like.
> > > > > > > > > > With this
> > > > > > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > > > few other changes, my smoke tests now pass.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > James
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't want to be clever here. I will rather
> > > > > > > > > intercept
> > > > > > > > > the body
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > try to keep the core code simple and easy to
> > > > > > > > > understand.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It came out quite clean actually.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just encapsulated handle mapping and have this in the
> > > > > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > tpm2_map_command:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if (cc == TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT)
> > > > > > > > return tpm2_map_to_phandle(space,
> > > > > > > > &cmd[TPM_HEADER_SIZE]);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think this documents better what is actually going on
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > tinkering
> > > > > > > > cc_attr_tbl.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /Jarkko
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually what you suggested is much better idea because
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > will also
> > > > > > > take care of validation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's why it's clever ... I'm just always wary of
> > > > > > clever
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > because of the Kernighan principle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm still going to keep tpm2_map_to_phandle because it
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > code flow a lot cleaner and probably sessions have to
> > > > > > > anyway
> > > > > > > make it
> > > > > > > even more complicated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, there's one more thing that seems to be causing
> > > > > > problems:
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > tpm2_save_context fails because the handle no longer exists
> > > > > > (like it's
> > > > > > been flushed) it returns TPM_RC_REFERENCE_H0 not
> > > > > > TPM_RC_HANDLE
> > > > > > (the
> > > > > > session code does seem to return TPM_RC_HANDLE under some
> > > > > > circumstances).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > What is your way for reproducing this issue? Just want to add
> > > > > a test case for my smoke test suite so that I can verify that
> > > > > the issue is fixed once I've fixed it.
> > > >
> > > > Right. Too easy. Sorry about this. I'll push a fix for this to
> > > > tabrm4 branch.
> > >
> > > 1. I pushed a fix to the repository.
> >
> > I don't think the fix is right; this is what you now have
> >
> > } else if ((rc & TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
> > {
> >
> > That should be
> >
> > } else if (rc == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
>
> Right I see your point.
>
> And yes, also for RC_HANDLE the error handling was done incorrectly.
> It should be masked like you said with 0xff to catch error number
> and the F flag (bit 7).
>
> As it is format zero error code it should be fine to check without
> any mask.
>
> Thanks for noting this. It is easy to shoot yourself into foot when
> there's lot of stuff packed :-)
OK, I've rebased and retested to tabrm5. Apart from the obvious
introduced bug into the last patch (fix below if you need it)
everything works, so you can add my tested and reviewed bys.
James
---
commit b63aa4b3a5dce31cbc874fa32bd7252b62f55813
Author: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Thu Jan 26 08:43:55 2017 -0800
fix compile failure
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpms-dev.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpms-dev.c
index 5030f8c..5720885 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpms-dev.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpms-dev.c
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int tpms_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
struct tpms_priv *priv = container_of(fpriv, struct tpms_priv, priv);
tpm_common_release(file, fpriv);
- tpm2_del_space(&priv->space):
+ tpm2_del_space(&priv->space);
kfree(priv);
return 0;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-27 07:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> |
| Message-ID | <t48wa-M6-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1567863 |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 04:29:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 15:40 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:16:37PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 23:42 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:58:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 01:36:28PM -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 23:04 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01:07PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:30:55PM +0200, Jarkko
> > > > > > > > > Sakkinen
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:48:12AM -0800, James
> > > > > > > > > > Bottomley
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 09:49 -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sakkinen
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > top of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > > > > branch that contains Stefan's latest patch (min
> > > > > > > > > > > > > body length
> > > > > > > > > > > > > check)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that I've reviewed and tested. It also contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > /dev/tpms patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly good consensus, don't we? If so, can I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reviewed-by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and tested-by to my commits and vice versa?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still failing my test_transients. This is
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > > > python of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the test case:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > def test_transients(self):
> > > > > > > > > > > > k = self.open_transients()
> > > > > > > > > > > > self.c.flush_context(k[0])
> > > > > > > > > > > > self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1],
> > > > > > > > > > > > None,
> > > > > > > > > > > > pwd1)
> > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with
> > > > > > > > > > > > TPM_RC_VALUE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > > > > the same problem Ken complained about:
> > > > > > > > > > > > TPM2_FlushContext
> > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't have
> > > > > > > > > > > > a declared handle area so we don't translate the
> > > > > > > > > > > > handle being
> > > > > > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > > > down. We have to fix this either by intercepting
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > flush
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > manually translating the context, or by being
> > > > > > > > > > > > dangerously
> > > > > > > > > > > > clever and
> > > > > > > > > > > > marking flush as a command which takes one
> > > > > > > > > > > > handle.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is what the dangerously clever fix looks like.
> > > > > > > > > > > With this
> > > > > > > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > > > > few other changes, my smoke tests now pass.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > James
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't want to be clever here. I will rather
> > > > > > > > > > intercept
> > > > > > > > > > the body
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > try to keep the core code simple and easy to
> > > > > > > > > > understand.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It came out quite clean actually.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I just encapsulated handle mapping and have this in the
> > > > > > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > tpm2_map_command:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > if (cc == TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT)
> > > > > > > > > return tpm2_map_to_phandle(space,
> > > > > > > > > &cmd[TPM_HEADER_SIZE]);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think this documents better what is actually going on
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > tinkering
> > > > > > > > > cc_attr_tbl.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > /Jarkko
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually what you suggested is much better idea because
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > will also
> > > > > > > > take care of validation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that's why it's clever ... I'm just always wary of
> > > > > > > clever
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > because of the Kernighan principle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm still going to keep tpm2_map_to_phandle because it
> > > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > code flow a lot cleaner and probably sessions have to
> > > > > > > > anyway
> > > > > > > > make it
> > > > > > > > even more complicated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK, there's one more thing that seems to be causing
> > > > > > > problems:
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > tpm2_save_context fails because the handle no longer exists
> > > > > > > (like it's
> > > > > > > been flushed) it returns TPM_RC_REFERENCE_H0 not
> > > > > > > TPM_RC_HANDLE
> > > > > > > (the
> > > > > > > session code does seem to return TPM_RC_HANDLE under some
> > > > > > > circumstances).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > James
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is your way for reproducing this issue? Just want to add
> > > > > > a test case for my smoke test suite so that I can verify that
> > > > > > the issue is fixed once I've fixed it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. Too easy. Sorry about this. I'll push a fix for this to
> > > > > tabrm4 branch.
> > > >
> > > > 1. I pushed a fix to the repository.
> > >
> > > I don't think the fix is right; this is what you now have
> > >
> > > } else if ((rc & TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
> > > {
> > >
> > > That should be
> > >
> > > } else if (rc == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
> >
> > Right I see your point.
> >
> > And yes, also for RC_HANDLE the error handling was done incorrectly.
> > It should be masked like you said with 0xff to catch error number
> > and the F flag (bit 7).
> >
> > As it is format zero error code it should be fine to check without
> > any mask.
> >
> > Thanks for noting this. It is easy to shoot yourself into foot when
> > there's lot of stuff packed :-)
>
> OK, I've rebased and retested to tabrm5. Apart from the obvious
> introduced bug into the last patch (fix below if you need it)
> everything works, so you can add my tested and reviewed bys.
>
> James
>
> ---
>
> commit b63aa4b3a5dce31cbc874fa32bd7252b62f55813
> Author: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
> Date: Thu Jan 26 08:43:55 2017 -0800
>
> fix compile failure
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpms-dev.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpms-dev.c
> index 5030f8c..5720885 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpms-dev.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpms-dev.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int tpms_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> struct tpms_priv *priv = container_of(fpriv, struct tpms_priv, priv);
>
> tpm_common_release(file, fpriv);
> - tpm2_del_space(&priv->space):
> + tpm2_del_space(&priv->space);
> kfree(priv);
>
> return 0;
>
Thanks. It should be now OK.
/Jarkko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-25 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t3CmD-6vC-53@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1565331 |
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:16:37PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 23:42 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:58:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 01:36:28PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 23:04 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01:07PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:30:55PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:48:12AM -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 09:49 -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now on
> > > > > > > > > > > top of
> > > > > > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > > branch that contains Stefan's latest patch (min
> > > > > > > > > > > body length
> > > > > > > > > > > check)
> > > > > > > > > > > that I've reviewed and tested. It also contains
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > > /dev/tpms patch.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are such
> > > > > > > > > > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > fairly good consensus, don't we? If so, can I add
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > reviewed-by
> > > > > > > > > > > and tested-by to my commits and vice versa?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We're still failing my test_transients. This is the
> > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > python of
> > > > > > > > > > the test case:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > def test_transients(self):
> > > > > > > > > > k = self.open_transients()
> > > > > > > > > > self.c.flush_context(k[0])
> > > > > > > > > > self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1], None,
> > > > > > > > > > pwd1)
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with
> > > > > > > > > > TPM_RC_VALUE.
> > > > > > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > > the same problem Ken complained about:
> > > > > > > > > > TPM2_FlushContext
> > > > > > > > > > doesn't have
> > > > > > > > > > a declared handle area so we don't translate the
> > > > > > > > > > handle being
> > > > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > down. We have to fix this either by intercepting the
> > > > > > > > > > flush
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > manually translating the context, or by being
> > > > > > > > > > dangerously
> > > > > > > > > > clever and
> > > > > > > > > > marking flush as a command which takes one handle.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is what the dangerously clever fix looks like.
> > > > > > > > > With this
> > > > > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > > few other changes, my smoke tests now pass.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > James
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't want to be clever here. I will rather intercept
> > > > > > > > the body
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > try to keep the core code simple and easy to understand.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It came out quite clean actually.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just encapsulated handle mapping and have this in the
> > > > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > tpm2_map_command:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if (cc == TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT)
> > > > > > > return tpm2_map_to_phandle(space,
> > > > > > > &cmd[TPM_HEADER_SIZE]);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this documents better what is actually going on
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > tinkering
> > > > > > > cc_attr_tbl.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /Jarkko
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually what you suggested is much better idea because it
> > > > > > will also
> > > > > > take care of validation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's why it's clever ... I'm just always wary of clever
> > > > > code
> > > > > because of the Kernighan principle.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm still going to keep tpm2_map_to_phandle because it makes
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > code flow a lot cleaner and probably sessions have to anyway
> > > > > > make it
> > > > > > even more complicated.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, there's one more thing that seems to be causing problems:
> > > > > when
> > > > > tpm2_save_context fails because the handle no longer exists
> > > > > (like it's
> > > > > been flushed) it returns TPM_RC_REFERENCE_H0 not TPM_RC_HANDLE
> > > > > (the
> > > > > session code does seem to return TPM_RC_HANDLE under some
> > > > > circumstances).
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > >
> > > > What is your way for reproducing this issue? Just want to add
> > > > a test case for my smoke test suite so that I can verify that
> > > > the issue is fixed once I've fixed it.
> > >
> > > Right. Too easy. Sorry about this. I'll push a fix for this to
> > > tabrm4 branch.
> >
> > 1. I pushed a fix to the repository.
>
> I don't think the fix is right; this is what you now have
>
> } else if ((rc & TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
> {
>
> That should be
>
> } else if (rc == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
>
> because the 0x9XX return codes don't have any parameter information
> that needs stripping and (rc & TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) ==
> TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) will match any error code that has bits 11, 8
> and 5 set.
>
> I think the handle check was wrong too, it should have been
>
> if (rc & 0xff) == TPM2_RC_HANDLE)
>
> Because all you need to do is strip off the parameter information
>
> James
Can you check if it is now what you would expect? There's now
a helper called tpm2_rc_value(). I also created tabrm5 branch
where everything is nicely squashed together...
/Jarkko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t2xyG-5ND-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1564565 |
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:30:55PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:48:12AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 09:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now on top of master > > > > branch that contains Stefan's latest patch (min body length check) > > > > that I've reviewed and tested. It also contains your updated > > > > /dev/tpms patch. > > > > > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are such that we have > > > > fairly good consensus, don't we? If so, can I add your reviewed-by > > > > and tested-by to my commits and vice versa? > > > > > > We're still failing my test_transients. This is the full python of > > > the test case: > > > > > > > > > def test_transients(self): > > > k = self.open_transients() > > > self.c.flush_context(k[0]) > > > self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1], None, pwd1) > > > ... > > > > > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with TPM_RC_VALUE. It's > > > the same problem Ken complained about: TPM2_FlushContext doesn't have > > > a declared handle area so we don't translate the handle being sent > > > down. We have to fix this either by intercepting the flush and > > > manually translating the context, or by being dangerously clever and > > > marking flush as a command which takes one handle. > > > > This is what the dangerously clever fix looks like. With this and a > > few other changes, my smoke tests now pass. > > > > James > > I don't want to be clever here. I will rather intercept the body and > try to keep the core code simple and easy to understand. It came out quite clean actually. I just encapsulated handle mapping and have this in the beginning of tpm2_map_command: if (cc == TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT) return tpm2_map_to_phandle(space, &cmd[TPM_HEADER_SIZE]); I think this documents better what is actually going on than tinkering cc_attr_tbl. /Jarkko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t2wVX-5jQ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1564478 |
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 09:49:02AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now on top of master > > branch > > that contains Stefan's latest patch (min body length check) that I've > > reviewed and tested. It also contains your updated /dev/tpms patch. > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are such that we have fairly > > good consensus, don't we? If so, can I add your reviewed-by and > > tested-by to my commits and vice versa? > > We're still failing my test_transients. This is the full python of the > test case: > > > def test_transients(self): > k = self.open_transients() > self.c.flush_context(k[0]) > self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1], None, pwd1) > ... > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with TPM_RC_VALUE. It's the > same problem Ken complained about: TPM2_FlushContext doesn't have a > declared handle area so we don't translate the handle being sent down. > We have to fix this either by intercepting the flush and manually > translating the context, or by being dangerously clever and marking > flush as a command which takes one handle. I'll add interception of flush to the next patch set version. /Jarkko
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web