Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 May 2017 17:09:36 -0700 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] tpm: vtpm_proxy: Implement request_locality function. |
| |
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 07:03:27PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 05/24/2017 06:21 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 05:39:40PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > Implement the request_locality function. To set the locality on the > > > backend we define vendor-specific TPM 1.2 and TPM 2 ordinals and send > > > a command to the backend to set the locality for the next commands. > > > > > > To avoid recursing into requesting the locality, we set the > > > TPM_TRANSMIT_RAW flag when calling tpm_transmit_cmd. To avoid recursing > > > into TPM 2 space related commands, we set the space parameter to NULL. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 1 + > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_vtpm_proxy.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/uapi/linux/vtpm_proxy.h | 4 ++++ > > > 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > > index 2eacda2..876d45f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > > @@ -537,6 +537,7 @@ ssize_t tpm_transmit_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct tpm_space *space, > > > return 0; > > > } > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_transmit_cmd); > > > #define TPM_DIGEST_SIZE 20 > > > #define TPM_RET_CODE_IDX 6 > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_vtpm_proxy.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_vtpm_proxy.c > > > index 751059d..66024bf 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_vtpm_proxy.c > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_vtpm_proxy.c > > > @@ -371,6 +371,41 @@ static bool vtpm_proxy_tpm_req_canceled(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 status) > > > return ret; > > > } > > > +static int vtpm_proxy_request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int locality) > > > +{ > > > + struct tpm_buf buf; > > > + int rc; > > > + const struct tpm_output_header *header; > > > + > > > + if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) > > > + rc = tpm_buf_init(&buf, TPM2_ST_SESSIONS, > > > + TPM2_CC_SET_LOCALITY); > > I would always go with this branch. > > > > > + else > > > + rc = tpm_buf_init(&buf, TPM_TAG_RQU_COMMAND, > > > + TPM_ORD_SET_LOCALITY); > > > + if (rc) > > > + return rc; > > > + tpm_buf_append_u8(&buf, locality); > > > + > > > + rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, NULL, buf.data, tpm_buf_length(&buf), 0, > > > + TPM_TRANSMIT_UNLOCKED | TPM_TRANSMIT_RAW, > > > + "attempting to set locality"); > > > + if (rc < 0) { > > > + locality = rc; > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > + header = (const struct tpm_output_header *)buf.data; > > > + rc = be32_to_cpu(header->return_code); > > > + if (rc) > > > + locality = -1; > > > + > > > +out: > > > + tpm_buf_destroy(&buf); > > > + > > > + return locality; > > > +} > > > + > > > static const struct tpm_class_ops vtpm_proxy_tpm_ops = { > > > .flags = TPM_OPS_AUTO_STARTUP, > > > .recv = vtpm_proxy_tpm_op_recv, > > > @@ -380,6 +415,7 @@ static const struct tpm_class_ops vtpm_proxy_tpm_ops = { > > > .req_complete_mask = VTPM_PROXY_REQ_COMPLETE_FLAG, > > > .req_complete_val = VTPM_PROXY_REQ_COMPLETE_FLAG, > > > .req_canceled = vtpm_proxy_tpm_req_canceled, > > > + .request_locality = vtpm_proxy_request_locality, > > > }; > > > /* > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vtpm_proxy.h b/include/uapi/linux/vtpm_proxy.h > > > index a69e991..58ac73c 100644 > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/vtpm_proxy.h > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vtpm_proxy.h > > > @@ -46,4 +46,8 @@ struct vtpm_proxy_new_dev { > > > #define VTPM_PROXY_IOC_NEW_DEV _IOWR(0xa1, 0x00, struct vtpm_proxy_new_dev) > > > +/* vendor specific commands to set locality */ > > > +#define TPM2_CC_SET_LOCALITY 0x20001000 > > > +#define TPM_ORD_SET_LOCALITY 0x20001000 > > > + > > > #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_VTPM_PROXY_H */ > > > -- > > > 2.4.3 > > What practical benefit you get from these two constants? I understand > > the value range but not so much the redundant code. > > If you want to change this, please go ahead and give it a sinle name. > For the code branches above I think that we should at least send a TPM 1.2 > formatted command in case of TPM 1.2 and a TPM 2 formatted one in case of > TPM 2. It seems just 'proper.' > > Stefan
Agreed. I will make these changes no need to send new series.
Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
/Jarkko
| |