[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       tpmdd-devel
Subject:    Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v8 6/8] tpm: TPM 2.0 baseline support
From:       peterhuewe () gmx ! de
Date:       2014-12-08 16:18:06
Message-ID: 279e9a5e-05a9-4826-ada1-899fdcd11cea () email ! android ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi 

On 8. Dezember 2014 14:56:15 MEZ, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> \
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:13:18AM +0100, Peter Hüwe wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2014, 03:28:35 schrieb Stefan Berger:
> > > On 12/02/2014 05:31 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * tpm2_startup() - send startup command to the TPM chip
> > > > + * @chip:		TPM chip to use.
> > > > + * @startup_type	startup type. The value is either
> > > > + *			TPM_SU_CLEAR or TPM_SU_STATE.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * 0 is returned when the operation is successful. If a negative
> number
> > > > is + * returned it remarks a POSIX error code. If a positive
> number is
> > > > returned + * it remarks a TPM error.
> > > > + */
> > > > +int tpm2_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip, __be16 startup_type)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct tpm2_cmd cmd;
> > > > +
> > > > +	cmd.header.in = tpm2_startup_header;
> > > > +
> > > > +	cmd.params.startup_in.startup_type = startup_type;
> > > > +	return tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, &cmd, sizeof(cmd),
> > > > +				"attempting to start the TPM");
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > I suppose you need to send this command because your firmware does
> not
> > > do it ?Following TPM1.2 I guess the BIOS / UEFI should send this
> instead
> > > and sending it later would actually be wrong. Hm, I don't find from
> > > where you are calling this... do you need it ? Can you remove it?
> > > 
> > > Stefan
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I think it would be good to send a TPM2_Startup if the TPM sends a 
> > TPM_RC_INITIALIZE (0x100) - so it becomes atleast usable.
> > Of course the BIOS/UEFI/Firmware should send the TPM2_Startup, but if
> there is 
> > no such thing, I would prefer Linux to do it, rather than nobody.
> > (analog: This was done for embedded platforms with TPM1.2).
> > 
> > In the current situation (v9) it is not possible to use the TPM2 on a
> machine 
> > without bios integration. :( (so I cannot test here :( )
> 
> Should the place be if sending self-test fails? I think the type should
> be TPM2_SU_CLEAR. Do you agree?
> 

Yes. If the first command returns "invalid post init" or whatever it is called in \
tpm20 speech the driver should send the startup clear.


Not sure if we should send a startup state in the resume case (like on tpm1.2)

And also it might make sense to send a tpm_shutdown? (If we aren't already) I think \
even on a machine with bios integration we have to send this?


> All other issues are now fixed except this and STS3 bit issue that I 
> look for next. In my github there is tpm2-v10 branch now with fixes
> on top. I squash the fixes right after these two remaining issues are
> fixed.
> 
> > Peter
> 
> /Jarkko

Peter
-- 
Sent from my mobile.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=164703151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
tpmdd-devel mailing list
tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]