Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:01:18 +0200 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support for TPM 2.0 firmware event log |
| |
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:08:06PM +0530, Nayna wrote: > > > On 01/03/2017 07:03 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:09:18PM +0530, Nayna wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 01/03/2017 03:42 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 12:35:33AM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > > > Unlike the device driver support for TPM 1.2, the TPM 2.0 does > > > > > not support the securityfs pseudo files for displaying the > > > > > firmware event log. > > > > > > > > > > This patch enables support for providing the TPM 2.0 event log in > > > > > binary form. TPM 2.0 event log supports a crypto agile format that > > > > > records multiple digests, which is different from TPM 1.2. This > > > > > patch enables the tpm_bios_log_setup for TPM 2.0 and adds the > > > > > event log parser which understand the TPM 2.0 crypto agile format. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > There is something fundamentally wrong in this commit. > > > > > > > > You must not allow this feature unless CONFIG_OF is set. It is the only > > > > interface where the supply path of the event log is well defined on > > > > platforms that include a TPM 2.0 chip. > > > > > > As per current implementation, if ACPI with TPM 2.0 doesn't support event > > > log, tpm_read_log_acpi() is expected to return rc and tpm_bios_log_setup > > > will not create securityfs. This is inline with our design for TPM 1.2 event > > > log. > > > > At minimum you must have a check for TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2 in the beginning > > of tpm_read_log_acpi. It is wrong to even try to open TCPA in this case. > > Sure, will add this check and return -ENODEV if check passes.
Yeah, this is acceptable for me.
> Thanks & Regards, > - Nayna
/Jarkko
| |