From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jsnitsel@redhat.com (Jerry Snitselaar) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PATCH v4] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0 In-Reply-To: <20170326105239.dgohwest2wmwynrd@intel.com> References: <20170324101032.13496-1-jarkko.sakkinen@iki.fi> <87lgru7cqy.fsf@redhat.com> <20170325195211.w2gfmodozgwrfxy6@intel.com> <20170326105239.dgohwest2wmwynrd@intel.com> Message-ID: <86502130.6118027.1490546369696.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" > To: "Jerry Snitselaar" , "gang wei" > Cc: "Jarkko Sakkinen" , tpmdd-devel at lists.sourceforge.net, > linux-security-module at vger.kernel.org, "Peter Huewe" , "Marcel Selhorst" , > "Jason Gunthorpe" , "open list" > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 3:52:39 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0 > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 09:52:11PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:25:57AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2017-03-24 10:10 GMT: > > > > > > > This commit adds support for requesting and relinquishing locality 0 in > > > > tpm_crb for the course of command transmission. > > > > > > > > In order to achieve this, two new callbacks are added to struct > > > > tpm_class_ops: > > > > > > > > - request_locality > > > > - relinquish_locality > > > > > > > > With CRB interface you first set either requestAccess or relinquish bit > > > > from TPM_LOC_CTRL_x register and then wait for locAssigned and > > > > tpmRegValidSts bits to be set in the TPM_LOC_STATE_x register. > > > > > > > > The reason why were are doing this is to make sure that the driver > > > > will work properly with Intel TXT that uses locality 2. There's no > > > > explicit guarantee that it would relinquish this locality. In more > > > > general sense this commit enables tpm_crb to be a well behaving > > > > citizen in a multi locality environment. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jerry Snitselaar > > > Tested-by: Jerry Snitselaar > > > > > > Tested on kabylake system that was hitting issues with earlier > > > iteration. Still don't have platform to test it dealing with > > > multi-locality enviroment. > > > > I believe Jimmy (Gang Wei) has done such testing. Jimmy can you confirm > > and possibly do re-test (there's a locality branch in my tree to ease > > the testing) so that we could land this one? > > > > /Jarkko > > I applied this to my master and next branches. > > /Jarkko > Hi Jarkko, The patch applied to next and master doesn't have the assignment moved inside the mutex. -- 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