Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n> | From | James Bottomley <> | Date | Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:36:28 -0800 |
| |
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
| |