From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com (Jarkko Sakkinen) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:38:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC,v2] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0 In-Reply-To: <20170311105543.gkj46ktz6kup3bu5@intel.com> References: <20170311105339.19486-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20170311105543.gkj46ktz6kup3bu5@intel.com> Message-ID: <20170311123809.pa6gdh3tbdvcod55@intel.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:53:36PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > Added two new callbacks to struct tpm_class_ops: > > > > - request_locality > > - relinquish_locality > > > > These are called before sending and receiving data from the TPM. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen > > --- > > This not yet v2 of this patch. I'm checking that this is what needs to be done > > for tpm_tis_core before I go through testing etc. Thank you. > > And apparently I did not amend tpm-interface.c change :( Anyway, I'm > merely sanity checking that I'm doing the right thing. If check_locality fails request_locality returns locality number but it's not used for anything. Would it be OK to change it to just return -EBUSY in this case? /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC,v2] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:38:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20170311123809.pa6gdh3tbdvcod55@intel.com> References: <20170311105339.19486-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20170311105543.gkj46ktz6kup3bu5@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170311105543.gkj46ktz6kup3bu5@intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org To: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Jerry Snitselaar , gang.wei@intel.com, Peter Huewe , Marcel Selhorst , Jason Gunthorpe , open list List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:53:36PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > Added two new callbacks to struct tpm_class_ops: > > > > - request_locality > > - relinquish_locality > > > > These are called before sending and receiving data from the TPM. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen > > --- > > This not yet v2 of this patch. I'm checking that this is what needs to be done > > for tpm_tis_core before I go through testing etc. Thank you. > > And apparently I did not amend tpm-interface.c change :( Anyway, I'm > merely sanity checking that I'm doing the right thing. If check_locality fails request_locality returns locality number but it's not used for anything. Would it be OK to change it to just return -EBUSY in this case? /Jarkko