* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-12 0:02 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-12 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:51:45AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>
> On 10/09/2016 03:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Refactored tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd, which means that it also
> > takes capability ID as input. This is required to access
> > TPM_CAP_HANDLES, which contains metadata needed for swapping transient
> > data.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 6 +++-
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 +-
> > 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > index 0fab6d5..8176f42 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ enum tpm2_capabilities {
> > TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES = 6,
> > };
> >
> > +enum tpm2_properties {
> > + TPM2_PT_FAMILY_INDICATOR = 0x100,
> > +};
> > +
> > enum tpm2_startup_types {
> > TPM2_SU_CLEAR = 0x0000,
> > TPM2_SU_STATE = 0x0001,
> > @@ -485,7 +489,7 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > int tpm2_unseal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
> > struct trusted_key_options *options);
> > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id,
> > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > u32 *value, const char *desc);
> >
> > int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > index 2900e18..fcf3d86 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in {
> > u8 digest[TPM_DIGEST_SIZE];
> > } __packed;
> >
> > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in {
> > +struct tpm2_getcap_in {
> > __be32 cap_id;
> > __be32 property_id;
> > __be32 property_cnt;
> > } __packed;
> >
> > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out {
> > +struct tpm2_getcap_out {
> > u8 more_data;
> > __be32 subcap_id;
> > __be32 property_cnt;
> > @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ union tpm2_cmd_params {
> > struct tpm2_pcr_read_in pcrread_in;
> > struct tpm2_pcr_read_out pcrread_out;
> > struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in pcrextend_in;
> > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in get_tpm_pt_in;
> > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out get_tpm_pt_out;
> > + struct tpm2_getcap_in getcap_in;
> > + struct tpm2_getcap_out getcap_out;
> > struct tpm2_get_random_in getrandom_in;
> > struct tpm2_get_random_out getrandom_out;
> > };
> > @@ -435,16 +435,6 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *out, size_t max)
> > return total ? total : -EIO;
> > }
> >
> > -#define TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE \
> > - (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
> > - sizeof(struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in))
> > -
> > -static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header = {
> > - .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > - .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE),
> > - .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > -};
> > -
> > /**
> > * Append TPMS_AUTH_COMMAND to the buffer. The buffer must be allocated with
> > * tpm_buf_alloc().
> > @@ -750,35 +740,43 @@ out:
> > return rc;
> > }
> >
> > +#define TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE \
> > + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + sizeof(struct tpm2_getcap_in))
> > +
> > +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_getcap_header = {
> > + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE),
> > + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > +};
> > +
> > /**
> > - * tpm2_get_tpm_pt() - get value of a TPM_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES type property
> > - * @chip: TPM chip to use.
> > - * @property_id: property ID.
> > - * @value: output variable.
> > + * tpm2_getcap_cmd() - execute a TPM2_GetCapability command
> > + * @chip: TPM chip to use
> > + * @cap_id: capability ID
> > + * @property_id: property ID
> > + * @value: value of the property
> > * @desc: passed to tpm_transmit_cmd()
> > *
> > - * 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.
> > + * Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd
> > */
> > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id, u32 *value,
> > - const char *desc)
> > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > + u32 *value, const char *desc)
>
> This function currently returns single value "u32 *value" as output data.
>
> Some calling function expect list of values from capabilities output.
> For eg., get_active_banks() use TPM_CAP_PCRS capability to retrieve list of
> active banks. And this capability returns array of pcr selections(which is a
> struct representing each active PCR bank)
>
> I was thinking, can we define output parameter as struct of cap_id and union
> of expected cap_data ?
Unless you have major concerns about performance, which I think are not
relevant here, calling this in a loop is perfectly adequate and a lot of
simpler than having a generic version (with moreData handling and
everything).
I would rather see uses of struct cap_t to shrink than to expand. The
same goes for other horrific unions that exist today in the driver.
/Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
2016-11-12 0:02 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
@ 2016-11-14 23:48 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-14 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list, linux-security-module
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 04:02:43PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:51:45AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/09/2016 03:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Refactored tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd, which means that it also
> > > takes capability ID as input. This is required to access
> > > TPM_CAP_HANDLES, which contains metadata needed for swapping transient
> > > data.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 6 +++-
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 +-
> > > 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > index 0fab6d5..8176f42 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ enum tpm2_capabilities {
> > > TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES = 6,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +enum tpm2_properties {
> > > + TPM2_PT_FAMILY_INDICATOR = 0x100,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > enum tpm2_startup_types {
> > > TPM2_SU_CLEAR = 0x0000,
> > > TPM2_SU_STATE = 0x0001,
> > > @@ -485,7 +489,7 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > int tpm2_unseal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
> > > struct trusted_key_options *options);
> > > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id,
> > > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > > u32 *value, const char *desc);
> > >
> > > int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > index 2900e18..fcf3d86 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in {
> > > u8 digest[TPM_DIGEST_SIZE];
> > > } __packed;
> > >
> > > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in {
> > > +struct tpm2_getcap_in {
> > > __be32 cap_id;
> > > __be32 property_id;
> > > __be32 property_cnt;
> > > } __packed;
> > >
> > > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out {
> > > +struct tpm2_getcap_out {
> > > u8 more_data;
> > > __be32 subcap_id;
> > > __be32 property_cnt;
> > > @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ union tpm2_cmd_params {
> > > struct tpm2_pcr_read_in pcrread_in;
> > > struct tpm2_pcr_read_out pcrread_out;
> > > struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in pcrextend_in;
> > > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in get_tpm_pt_in;
> > > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out get_tpm_pt_out;
> > > + struct tpm2_getcap_in getcap_in;
> > > + struct tpm2_getcap_out getcap_out;
> > > struct tpm2_get_random_in getrandom_in;
> > > struct tpm2_get_random_out getrandom_out;
> > > };
> > > @@ -435,16 +435,6 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *out, size_t max)
> > > return total ? total : -EIO;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -#define TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE \
> > > - (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
> > > - sizeof(struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in))
> > > -
> > > -static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header = {
> > > - .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > > - .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE),
> > > - .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > /**
> > > * Append TPMS_AUTH_COMMAND to the buffer. The buffer must be allocated with
> > > * tpm_buf_alloc().
> > > @@ -750,35 +740,43 @@ out:
> > > return rc;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +#define TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE \
> > > + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + sizeof(struct tpm2_getcap_in))
> > > +
> > > +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_getcap_header = {
> > > + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > > + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE),
> > > + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > - * tpm2_get_tpm_pt() - get value of a TPM_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES type property
> > > - * @chip: TPM chip to use.
> > > - * @property_id: property ID.
> > > - * @value: output variable.
> > > + * tpm2_getcap_cmd() - execute a TPM2_GetCapability command
> > > + * @chip: TPM chip to use
> > > + * @cap_id: capability ID
> > > + * @property_id: property ID
> > > + * @value: value of the property
> > > * @desc: passed to tpm_transmit_cmd()
> > > *
> > > - * 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.
> > > + * Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd
> > > */
> > > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id, u32 *value,
> > > - const char *desc)
> > > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > > + u32 *value, const char *desc)
> >
> > This function currently returns single value "u32 *value" as output data.
> >
> > Some calling function expect list of values from capabilities output.
> > For eg., get_active_banks() use TPM_CAP_PCRS capability to retrieve list of
> > active banks. And this capability returns array of pcr selections(which is a
> > struct representing each active PCR bank)
> >
> > I was thinking, can we define output parameter as struct of cap_id and union
> > of expected cap_data ?
>
> Unless you have major concerns about performance, which I think are not
> relevant here, calling this in a loop is perfectly adequate and a lot of
> simpler than having a generic version (with moreData handling and
> everything).
>
> I would rather see uses of struct cap_t to shrink than to expand. The
> same goes for other horrific unions that exist today in the driver.
If you are fine with this patch (give Reviewed-by) I can apply this
and add to my 4.10 pull request so that we have common baseline to
develop both event log and the resource manager.
This is a very low risk commit to take to 4.10 because it is only used
for interrupt generation in the TIS driver at the moment.
/Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-14 23:48 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-14 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list, linux-security-module
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 04:02:43PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:51:45AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/09/2016 03:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Refactored tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd, which means that it also
> > > takes capability ID as input. This is required to access
> > > TPM_CAP_HANDLES, which contains metadata needed for swapping transient
> > > data.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 6 +++-
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 +-
> > > 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > index 0fab6d5..8176f42 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ enum tpm2_capabilities {
> > > TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES = 6,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +enum tpm2_properties {
> > > + TPM2_PT_FAMILY_INDICATOR = 0x100,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > enum tpm2_startup_types {
> > > TPM2_SU_CLEAR = 0x0000,
> > > TPM2_SU_STATE = 0x0001,
> > > @@ -485,7 +489,7 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > int tpm2_unseal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
> > > struct trusted_key_options *options);
> > > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id,
> > > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > > u32 *value, const char *desc);
> > >
> > > int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > index 2900e18..fcf3d86 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in {
> > > u8 digest[TPM_DIGEST_SIZE];
> > > } __packed;
> > >
> > > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in {
> > > +struct tpm2_getcap_in {
> > > __be32 cap_id;
> > > __be32 property_id;
> > > __be32 property_cnt;
> > > } __packed;
> > >
> > > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out {
> > > +struct tpm2_getcap_out {
> > > u8 more_data;
> > > __be32 subcap_id;
> > > __be32 property_cnt;
> > > @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ union tpm2_cmd_params {
> > > struct tpm2_pcr_read_in pcrread_in;
> > > struct tpm2_pcr_read_out pcrread_out;
> > > struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in pcrextend_in;
> > > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in get_tpm_pt_in;
> > > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out get_tpm_pt_out;
> > > + struct tpm2_getcap_in getcap_in;
> > > + struct tpm2_getcap_out getcap_out;
> > > struct tpm2_get_random_in getrandom_in;
> > > struct tpm2_get_random_out getrandom_out;
> > > };
> > > @@ -435,16 +435,6 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *out, size_t max)
> > > return total ? total : -EIO;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -#define TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE \
> > > - (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
> > > - sizeof(struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in))
> > > -
> > > -static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header = {
> > > - .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > > - .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE),
> > > - .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > /**
> > > * Append TPMS_AUTH_COMMAND to the buffer. The buffer must be allocated with
> > > * tpm_buf_alloc().
> > > @@ -750,35 +740,43 @@ out:
> > > return rc;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +#define TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE \
> > > + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + sizeof(struct tpm2_getcap_in))
> > > +
> > > +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_getcap_header = {
> > > + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > > + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE),
> > > + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > - * tpm2_get_tpm_pt() - get value of a TPM_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES type property
> > > - * @chip: TPM chip to use.
> > > - * @property_id: property ID.
> > > - * @value: output variable.
> > > + * tpm2_getcap_cmd() - execute a TPM2_GetCapability command
> > > + * @chip: TPM chip to use
> > > + * @cap_id: capability ID
> > > + * @property_id: property ID
> > > + * @value: value of the property
> > > * @desc: passed to tpm_transmit_cmd()
> > > *
> > > - * 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.
> > > + * Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd
> > > */
> > > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id, u32 *value,
> > > - const char *desc)
> > > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > > + u32 *value, const char *desc)
> >
> > This function currently returns single value "u32 *value" as output data.
> >
> > Some calling function expect list of values from capabilities output.
> > For eg., get_active_banks() use TPM_CAP_PCRS capability to retrieve list of
> > active banks. And this capability returns array of pcr selections(which is a
> > struct representing each active PCR bank)
> >
> > I was thinking, can we define output parameter as struct of cap_id and union
> > of expected cap_data ?
>
> Unless you have major concerns about performance, which I think are not
> relevant here, calling this in a loop is perfectly adequate and a lot of
> simpler than having a generic version (with moreData handling and
> everything).
>
> I would rather see uses of struct cap_t to shrink than to expand. The
> same goes for other horrific unions that exist today in the driver.
If you are fine with this patch (give Reviewed-by) I can apply this
and add to my 4.10 pull request so that we have common baseline to
develop both event log and the resource manager.
This is a very low risk commit to take to 4.10 because it is only used
for interrupt generation in the TIS driver at the moment.
/Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
2016-11-14 23:48 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
@ 2016-11-24 13:42 ` Nayna
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Nayna @ 2016-11-24 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jarkko Sakkinen
Cc: moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list, linux-security-module
On 11/15/2016 05:18 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 04:02:43PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:51:45AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2016 03:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>> Refactored tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd, which means that it also
>>>> takes capability ID as input. This is required to access
>>>> TPM_CAP_HANDLES, which contains metadata needed for swapping transient
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 6 +++-
>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 +-
>>>> 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>>> index 0fab6d5..8176f42 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>>> @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ enum tpm2_capabilities {
>>>> TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES = 6,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +enum tpm2_properties {
>>>> + TPM2_PT_FAMILY_INDICATOR = 0x100,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> enum tpm2_startup_types {
>>>> TPM2_SU_CLEAR = 0x0000,
>>>> TPM2_SU_STATE = 0x0001,
>>>> @@ -485,7 +489,7 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
>>>> int tpm2_unseal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
>>>> struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
>>>> struct trusted_key_options *options);
>>>> -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id,
>>>> +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
>>>> u32 *value, const char *desc);
>>>>
>>>> int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>>> index 2900e18..fcf3d86 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>>> @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in {
>>>> u8 digest[TPM_DIGEST_SIZE];
>>>> } __packed;
>>>>
>>>> -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in {
>>>> +struct tpm2_getcap_in {
>>>> __be32 cap_id;
>>>> __be32 property_id;
>>>> __be32 property_cnt;
>>>> } __packed;
>>>>
>>>> -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out {
>>>> +struct tpm2_getcap_out {
>>>> u8 more_data;
>>>> __be32 subcap_id;
>>>> __be32 property_cnt;
>>>> @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ union tpm2_cmd_params {
>>>> struct tpm2_pcr_read_in pcrread_in;
>>>> struct tpm2_pcr_read_out pcrread_out;
>>>> struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in pcrextend_in;
>>>> - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in get_tpm_pt_in;
>>>> - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out get_tpm_pt_out;
>>>> + struct tpm2_getcap_in getcap_in;
>>>> + struct tpm2_getcap_out getcap_out;
>>>> struct tpm2_get_random_in getrandom_in;
>>>> struct tpm2_get_random_out getrandom_out;
>>>> };
>>>> @@ -435,16 +435,6 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *out, size_t max)
>>>> return total ? total : -EIO;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -#define TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE \
>>>> - (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
>>>> - sizeof(struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in))
>>>> -
>>>> -static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header = {
>>>> - .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
>>>> - .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE),
>>>> - .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
>>>> -};
>>>> -
>>>> /**
>>>> * Append TPMS_AUTH_COMMAND to the buffer. The buffer must be allocated with
>>>> * tpm_buf_alloc().
>>>> @@ -750,35 +740,43 @@ out:
>>>> return rc;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +#define TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE \
>>>> + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + sizeof(struct tpm2_getcap_in))
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_getcap_header = {
>>>> + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
>>>> + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE),
>>>> + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> /**
>>>> - * tpm2_get_tpm_pt() - get value of a TPM_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES type property
>>>> - * @chip: TPM chip to use.
>>>> - * @property_id: property ID.
>>>> - * @value: output variable.
>>>> + * tpm2_getcap_cmd() - execute a TPM2_GetCapability command
>>>> + * @chip: TPM chip to use
>>>> + * @cap_id: capability ID
>>>> + * @property_id: property ID
>>>> + * @value: value of the property
>>>> * @desc: passed to tpm_transmit_cmd()
>>>> *
>>>> - * 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.
>>>> + * Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd
>>>> */
>>>> -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id, u32 *value,
>>>> - const char *desc)
>>>> +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
>>>> + u32 *value, const char *desc)
>>>
>>> This function currently returns single value "u32 *value" as output data.
>>>
>>> Some calling function expect list of values from capabilities output.
>>> For eg., get_active_banks() use TPM_CAP_PCRS capability to retrieve list of
>>> active banks. And this capability returns array of pcr selections(which is a
>>> struct representing each active PCR bank)
>>>
>>> I was thinking, can we define output parameter as struct of cap_id and union
>>> of expected cap_data ?
>>
>> Unless you have major concerns about performance, which I think are not
>> relevant here, calling this in a loop is perfectly adequate and a lot of
>> simpler than having a generic version (with moreData handling and
>> everything).
>>
>> I would rather see uses of struct cap_t to shrink than to expand. The
>> same goes for other horrific unions that exist today in the driver.
>
> If you are fine with this patch (give Reviewed-by) I can apply this
> and add to my 4.10 pull request so that we have common baseline to
> develop both event log and the resource manager.
>
> This is a very low risk commit to take to 4.10 because it is only used
> for interrupt generation in the TIS driver at the moment.
Works for capabilities with more_data(yes) and single value properties.
Reviewed-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
> /Jarkko
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-24 13:42 ` Nayna
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Nayna @ 2016-11-24 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jarkko Sakkinen
Cc: moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list, linux-security-module
On 11/15/2016 05:18 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 04:02:43PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:51:45AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2016 03:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>> Refactored tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd, which means that it also
>>>> takes capability ID as input. This is required to access
>>>> TPM_CAP_HANDLES, which contains metadata needed for swapping transient
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 6 +++-
>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 +-
>>>> 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>>> index 0fab6d5..8176f42 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>>> @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ enum tpm2_capabilities {
>>>> TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES = 6,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +enum tpm2_properties {
>>>> + TPM2_PT_FAMILY_INDICATOR = 0x100,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> enum tpm2_startup_types {
>>>> TPM2_SU_CLEAR = 0x0000,
>>>> TPM2_SU_STATE = 0x0001,
>>>> @@ -485,7 +489,7 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
>>>> int tpm2_unseal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
>>>> struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
>>>> struct trusted_key_options *options);
>>>> -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id,
>>>> +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
>>>> u32 *value, const char *desc);
>>>>
>>>> int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>>> index 2900e18..fcf3d86 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>>> @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in {
>>>> u8 digest[TPM_DIGEST_SIZE];
>>>> } __packed;
>>>>
>>>> -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in {
>>>> +struct tpm2_getcap_in {
>>>> __be32 cap_id;
>>>> __be32 property_id;
>>>> __be32 property_cnt;
>>>> } __packed;
>>>>
>>>> -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out {
>>>> +struct tpm2_getcap_out {
>>>> u8 more_data;
>>>> __be32 subcap_id;
>>>> __be32 property_cnt;
>>>> @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ union tpm2_cmd_params {
>>>> struct tpm2_pcr_read_in pcrread_in;
>>>> struct tpm2_pcr_read_out pcrread_out;
>>>> struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in pcrextend_in;
>>>> - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in get_tpm_pt_in;
>>>> - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out get_tpm_pt_out;
>>>> + struct tpm2_getcap_in getcap_in;
>>>> + struct tpm2_getcap_out getcap_out;
>>>> struct tpm2_get_random_in getrandom_in;
>>>> struct tpm2_get_random_out getrandom_out;
>>>> };
>>>> @@ -435,16 +435,6 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *out, size_t max)
>>>> return total ? total : -EIO;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -#define TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE \
>>>> - (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
>>>> - sizeof(struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in))
>>>> -
>>>> -static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header = {
>>>> - .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
>>>> - .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE),
>>>> - .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
>>>> -};
>>>> -
>>>> /**
>>>> * Append TPMS_AUTH_COMMAND to the buffer. The buffer must be allocated with
>>>> * tpm_buf_alloc().
>>>> @@ -750,35 +740,43 @@ out:
>>>> return rc;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +#define TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE \
>>>> + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + sizeof(struct tpm2_getcap_in))
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_getcap_header = {
>>>> + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
>>>> + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE),
>>>> + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> /**
>>>> - * tpm2_get_tpm_pt() - get value of a TPM_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES type property
>>>> - * @chip: TPM chip to use.
>>>> - * @property_id: property ID.
>>>> - * @value: output variable.
>>>> + * tpm2_getcap_cmd() - execute a TPM2_GetCapability command
>>>> + * @chip: TPM chip to use
>>>> + * @cap_id: capability ID
>>>> + * @property_id: property ID
>>>> + * @value: value of the property
>>>> * @desc: passed to tpm_transmit_cmd()
>>>> *
>>>> - * 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.
>>>> + * Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd
>>>> */
>>>> -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id, u32 *value,
>>>> - const char *desc)
>>>> +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
>>>> + u32 *value, const char *desc)
>>>
>>> This function currently returns single value "u32 *value" as output data.
>>>
>>> Some calling function expect list of values from capabilities output.
>>> For eg., get_active_banks() use TPM_CAP_PCRS capability to retrieve list of
>>> active banks. And this capability returns array of pcr selections(which is a
>>> struct representing each active PCR bank)
>>>
>>> I was thinking, can we define output parameter as struct of cap_id and union
>>> of expected cap_data ?
>>
>> Unless you have major concerns about performance, which I think are not
>> relevant here, calling this in a loop is perfectly adequate and a lot of
>> simpler than having a generic version (with moreData handling and
>> everything).
>>
>> I would rather see uses of struct cap_t to shrink than to expand. The
>> same goes for other horrific unions that exist today in the driver.
>
> If you are fine with this patch (give Reviewed-by) I can apply this
> and add to my 4.10 pull request so that we have common baseline to
> develop both event log and the resource manager.
>
> This is a very low risk commit to take to 4.10 because it is only used
> for interrupt generation in the TIS driver at the moment.
Works for capabilities with more_data(yes) and single value properties.
Reviewed-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
> /Jarkko
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-25 8:09 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-25 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list, linux-security-module
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 07:12:57PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>
> On 11/15/2016 05:18 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 04:02:43PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:51:45AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/09/2016 03:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > Refactored tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd, which means that it also
> > > > > takes capability ID as input. This is required to access
> > > > > TPM_CAP_HANDLES, which contains metadata needed for swapping transient
> > > > > data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 6 +++-
> > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 +-
> > > > > 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > > > index 0fab6d5..8176f42 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > > > @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ enum tpm2_capabilities {
> > > > > TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES = 6,
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > +enum tpm2_properties {
> > > > > + TPM2_PT_FAMILY_INDICATOR = 0x100,
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > enum tpm2_startup_types {
> > > > > TPM2_SU_CLEAR = 0x0000,
> > > > > TPM2_SU_STATE = 0x0001,
> > > > > @@ -485,7 +489,7 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > > > int tpm2_unseal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > > > struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
> > > > > struct trusted_key_options *options);
> > > > > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id,
> > > > > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > > > > u32 *value, const char *desc);
> > > > >
> > > > > int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > > > index 2900e18..fcf3d86 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > > > @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in {
> > > > > u8 digest[TPM_DIGEST_SIZE];
> > > > > } __packed;
> > > > >
> > > > > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in {
> > > > > +struct tpm2_getcap_in {
> > > > > __be32 cap_id;
> > > > > __be32 property_id;
> > > > > __be32 property_cnt;
> > > > > } __packed;
> > > > >
> > > > > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out {
> > > > > +struct tpm2_getcap_out {
> > > > > u8 more_data;
> > > > > __be32 subcap_id;
> > > > > __be32 property_cnt;
> > > > > @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ union tpm2_cmd_params {
> > > > > struct tpm2_pcr_read_in pcrread_in;
> > > > > struct tpm2_pcr_read_out pcrread_out;
> > > > > struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in pcrextend_in;
> > > > > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in get_tpm_pt_in;
> > > > > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out get_tpm_pt_out;
> > > > > + struct tpm2_getcap_in getcap_in;
> > > > > + struct tpm2_getcap_out getcap_out;
> > > > > struct tpm2_get_random_in getrandom_in;
> > > > > struct tpm2_get_random_out getrandom_out;
> > > > > };
> > > > > @@ -435,16 +435,6 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *out, size_t max)
> > > > > return total ? total : -EIO;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -#define TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE \
> > > > > - (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
> > > > > - sizeof(struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in))
> > > > > -
> > > > > -static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header = {
> > > > > - .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > > > > - .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE),
> > > > > - .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > > > > -};
> > > > > -
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Append TPMS_AUTH_COMMAND to the buffer. The buffer must be allocated with
> > > > > * tpm_buf_alloc().
> > > > > @@ -750,35 +740,43 @@ out:
> > > > > return rc;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +#define TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE \
> > > > > + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + sizeof(struct tpm2_getcap_in))
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_getcap_header = {
> > > > > + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > > > > + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE),
> > > > > + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > /**
> > > > > - * tpm2_get_tpm_pt() - get value of a TPM_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES type property
> > > > > - * @chip: TPM chip to use.
> > > > > - * @property_id: property ID.
> > > > > - * @value: output variable.
> > > > > + * tpm2_getcap_cmd() - execute a TPM2_GetCapability command
> > > > > + * @chip: TPM chip to use
> > > > > + * @cap_id: capability ID
> > > > > + * @property_id: property ID
> > > > > + * @value: value of the property
> > > > > * @desc: passed to tpm_transmit_cmd()
> > > > > *
> > > > > - * 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.
> > > > > + * Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd
> > > > > */
> > > > > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id, u32 *value,
> > > > > - const char *desc)
> > > > > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > > > > + u32 *value, const char *desc)
> > > >
> > > > This function currently returns single value "u32 *value" as output data.
> > > >
> > > > Some calling function expect list of values from capabilities output.
> > > > For eg., get_active_banks() use TPM_CAP_PCRS capability to retrieve list of
> > > > active banks. And this capability returns array of pcr selections(which is a
> > > > struct representing each active PCR bank)
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking, can we define output parameter as struct of cap_id and union
> > > > of expected cap_data ?
> > >
> > > Unless you have major concerns about performance, which I think are not
> > > relevant here, calling this in a loop is perfectly adequate and a lot of
> > > simpler than having a generic version (with moreData handling and
> > > everything).
> > >
> > > I would rather see uses of struct cap_t to shrink than to expand. The
> > > same goes for other horrific unions that exist today in the driver.
> >
> > If you are fine with this patch (give Reviewed-by) I can apply this
> > and add to my 4.10 pull request so that we have common baseline to
> > develop both event log and the resource manager.
> >
> > This is a very low risk commit to take to 4.10 because it is only used
> > for interrupt generation in the TIS driver at the moment.
>
> Works for capabilities with more_data(yes) and single value properties.
>
> Reviewed-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> - Nayna
Thanks. Not taking this into release though because you don't need it
as was the result of earlier discussion.
/Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-25 8:09 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-25 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna
Cc: linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 07:12:57PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>
> On 11/15/2016 05:18 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 04:02:43PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:51:45AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/09/2016 03:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > Refactored tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd, which means that it also
> > > > > takes capability ID as input. This is required to access
> > > > > TPM_CAP_HANDLES, which contains metadata needed for swapping transient
> > > > > data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 6 +++-
> > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 +-
> > > > > 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > > > index 0fab6d5..8176f42 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > > > @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ enum tpm2_capabilities {
> > > > > TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES = 6,
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > +enum tpm2_properties {
> > > > > + TPM2_PT_FAMILY_INDICATOR = 0x100,
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > enum tpm2_startup_types {
> > > > > TPM2_SU_CLEAR = 0x0000,
> > > > > TPM2_SU_STATE = 0x0001,
> > > > > @@ -485,7 +489,7 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > > > int tpm2_unseal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > > > struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
> > > > > struct trusted_key_options *options);
> > > > > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id,
> > > > > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > > > > u32 *value, const char *desc);
> > > > >
> > > > > int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > > > index 2900e18..fcf3d86 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
> > > > > @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in {
> > > > > u8 digest[TPM_DIGEST_SIZE];
> > > > > } __packed;
> > > > >
> > > > > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in {
> > > > > +struct tpm2_getcap_in {
> > > > > __be32 cap_id;
> > > > > __be32 property_id;
> > > > > __be32 property_cnt;
> > > > > } __packed;
> > > > >
> > > > > -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out {
> > > > > +struct tpm2_getcap_out {
> > > > > u8 more_data;
> > > > > __be32 subcap_id;
> > > > > __be32 property_cnt;
> > > > > @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ union tpm2_cmd_params {
> > > > > struct tpm2_pcr_read_in pcrread_in;
> > > > > struct tpm2_pcr_read_out pcrread_out;
> > > > > struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in pcrextend_in;
> > > > > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in get_tpm_pt_in;
> > > > > - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out get_tpm_pt_out;
> > > > > + struct tpm2_getcap_in getcap_in;
> > > > > + struct tpm2_getcap_out getcap_out;
> > > > > struct tpm2_get_random_in getrandom_in;
> > > > > struct tpm2_get_random_out getrandom_out;
> > > > > };
> > > > > @@ -435,16 +435,6 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *out, size_t max)
> > > > > return total ? total : -EIO;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -#define TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE \
> > > > > - (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
> > > > > - sizeof(struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in))
> > > > > -
> > > > > -static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header = {
> > > > > - .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > > > > - .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE),
> > > > > - .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > > > > -};
> > > > > -
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Append TPMS_AUTH_COMMAND to the buffer. The buffer must be allocated with
> > > > > * tpm_buf_alloc().
> > > > > @@ -750,35 +740,43 @@ out:
> > > > > return rc;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +#define TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE \
> > > > > + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + sizeof(struct tpm2_getcap_in))
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_getcap_header = {
> > > > > + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> > > > > + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE),
> > > > > + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > /**
> > > > > - * tpm2_get_tpm_pt() - get value of a TPM_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES type property
> > > > > - * @chip: TPM chip to use.
> > > > > - * @property_id: property ID.
> > > > > - * @value: output variable.
> > > > > + * tpm2_getcap_cmd() - execute a TPM2_GetCapability command
> > > > > + * @chip: TPM chip to use
> > > > > + * @cap_id: capability ID
> > > > > + * @property_id: property ID
> > > > > + * @value: value of the property
> > > > > * @desc: passed to tpm_transmit_cmd()
> > > > > *
> > > > > - * 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.
> > > > > + * Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd
> > > > > */
> > > > > -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id, u32 *value,
> > > > > - const char *desc)
> > > > > +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
> > > > > + u32 *value, const char *desc)
> > > >
> > > > This function currently returns single value "u32 *value" as output data.
> > > >
> > > > Some calling function expect list of values from capabilities output.
> > > > For eg., get_active_banks() use TPM_CAP_PCRS capability to retrieve list of
> > > > active banks. And this capability returns array of pcr selections(which is a
> > > > struct representing each active PCR bank)
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking, can we define output parameter as struct of cap_id and union
> > > > of expected cap_data ?
> > >
> > > Unless you have major concerns about performance, which I think are not
> > > relevant here, calling this in a loop is perfectly adequate and a lot of
> > > simpler than having a generic version (with moreData handling and
> > > everything).
> > >
> > > I would rather see uses of struct cap_t to shrink than to expand. The
> > > same goes for other horrific unions that exist today in the driver.
> >
> > If you are fine with this patch (give Reviewed-by) I can apply this
> > and add to my 4.10 pull request so that we have common baseline to
> > develop both event log and the resource manager.
> >
> > This is a very low risk commit to take to 4.10 because it is only used
> > for interrupt generation in the TIS driver at the moment.
>
> Works for capabilities with more_data(yes) and single value properties.
>
> Reviewed-by: Nayna Jain <nayna-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> - Nayna
Thanks. Not taking this into release though because you don't need it
as was the result of earlier discussion.
/Jarkko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-17 11:50 ` Nayna
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Nayna @ 2016-11-17 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On 11/12/2016 05:32 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:51:45AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/2016 03:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> Refactored tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd, which means that it also
>>> takes capability ID as input. This is required to access
>>> TPM_CAP_HANDLES, which contains metadata needed for swapping transient
>>> data.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 6 +++-
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 +-
>>> 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>> index 0fab6d5..8176f42 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>> @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ enum tpm2_capabilities {
>>> TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES = 6,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +enum tpm2_properties {
>>> + TPM2_PT_FAMILY_INDICATOR = 0x100,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> enum tpm2_startup_types {
>>> TPM2_SU_CLEAR = 0x0000,
>>> TPM2_SU_STATE = 0x0001,
>>> @@ -485,7 +489,7 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
>>> int tpm2_unseal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
>>> struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
>>> struct trusted_key_options *options);
>>> -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id,
>>> +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
>>> u32 *value, const char *desc);
>>>
>>> int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip);
>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>> index 2900e18..fcf3d86 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>> @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in {
>>> u8 digest[TPM_DIGEST_SIZE];
>>> } __packed;
>>>
>>> -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in {
>>> +struct tpm2_getcap_in {
>>> __be32 cap_id;
>>> __be32 property_id;
>>> __be32 property_cnt;
>>> } __packed;
>>>
>>> -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out {
>>> +struct tpm2_getcap_out {
>>> u8 more_data;
>>> __be32 subcap_id;
>>> __be32 property_cnt;
>>> @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ union tpm2_cmd_params {
>>> struct tpm2_pcr_read_in pcrread_in;
>>> struct tpm2_pcr_read_out pcrread_out;
>>> struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in pcrextend_in;
>>> - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in get_tpm_pt_in;
>>> - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out get_tpm_pt_out;
>>> + struct tpm2_getcap_in getcap_in;
>>> + struct tpm2_getcap_out getcap_out;
>>> struct tpm2_get_random_in getrandom_in;
>>> struct tpm2_get_random_out getrandom_out;
>>> };
>>> @@ -435,16 +435,6 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *out, size_t max)
>>> return total ? total : -EIO;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -#define TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE \
>>> - (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
>>> - sizeof(struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in))
>>> -
>>> -static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header = {
>>> - .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
>>> - .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE),
>>> - .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
>>> -};
>>> -
>>> /**
>>> * Append TPMS_AUTH_COMMAND to the buffer. The buffer must be allocated with
>>> * tpm_buf_alloc().
>>> @@ -750,35 +740,43 @@ out:
>>> return rc;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +#define TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE \
>>> + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + sizeof(struct tpm2_getcap_in))
>>> +
>>> +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_getcap_header = {
>>> + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
>>> + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE),
>>> + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> - * tpm2_get_tpm_pt() - get value of a TPM_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES type property
>>> - * @chip: TPM chip to use.
>>> - * @property_id: property ID.
>>> - * @value: output variable.
>>> + * tpm2_getcap_cmd() - execute a TPM2_GetCapability command
>>> + * @chip: TPM chip to use
>>> + * @cap_id: capability ID
>>> + * @property_id: property ID
>>> + * @value: value of the property
>>> * @desc: passed to tpm_transmit_cmd()
>>> *
>>> - * 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.
>>> + * Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd
>>> */
>>> -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id, u32 *value,
>>> - const char *desc)
>>> +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
>>> + u32 *value, const char *desc)
>>
>> This function currently returns single value "u32 *value" as output data.
>>
>> Some calling function expect list of values from capabilities output.
>> For eg., get_active_banks() use TPM_CAP_PCRS capability to retrieve list of
>> active banks. And this capability returns array of pcr selections(which is a
>> struct representing each active PCR bank)
>>
>> I was thinking, can we define output parameter as struct of cap_id and union
>> of expected cap_data ?
>
> Unless you have major concerns about performance, which I think are not
> relevant here, calling this in a loop is perfectly adequate and a lot of
> simpler than having a generic version (with moreData handling and
> everything).
>
> I would rather see uses of struct cap_t to shrink than to expand. The
> same goes for other horrific unions that exist today in the driver.
I agree with the idea of not using union.
I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
capability.
I was thinking in place of having u32 *value returning actual value, can
we have it as void *value, where getcap_cmd will memcpy its out
parameter content after subcap_id to value, and then calling function
typecast to expected type and use it.
Please let me know if I am missing something in using this function.
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
> /Jarkko
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-17 11:50 ` Nayna
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Nayna @ 2016-11-17 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On 11/12/2016 05:32 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:51:45AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/2016 03:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> Refactored tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd, which means that it also
>>> takes capability ID as input. This is required to access
>>> TPM_CAP_HANDLES, which contains metadata needed for swapping transient
>>> data.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 6 +++-
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 +-
>>> 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>> index 0fab6d5..8176f42 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>> @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ enum tpm2_capabilities {
>>> TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES = 6,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +enum tpm2_properties {
>>> + TPM2_PT_FAMILY_INDICATOR = 0x100,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> enum tpm2_startup_types {
>>> TPM2_SU_CLEAR = 0x0000,
>>> TPM2_SU_STATE = 0x0001,
>>> @@ -485,7 +489,7 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
>>> int tpm2_unseal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
>>> struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
>>> struct trusted_key_options *options);
>>> -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id,
>>> +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
>>> u32 *value, const char *desc);
>>>
>>> int tpm2_auto_startup(struct tpm_chip *chip);
>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>> index 2900e18..fcf3d86 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c
>>> @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in {
>>> u8 digest[TPM_DIGEST_SIZE];
>>> } __packed;
>>>
>>> -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in {
>>> +struct tpm2_getcap_in {
>>> __be32 cap_id;
>>> __be32 property_id;
>>> __be32 property_cnt;
>>> } __packed;
>>>
>>> -struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out {
>>> +struct tpm2_getcap_out {
>>> u8 more_data;
>>> __be32 subcap_id;
>>> __be32 property_cnt;
>>> @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ union tpm2_cmd_params {
>>> struct tpm2_pcr_read_in pcrread_in;
>>> struct tpm2_pcr_read_out pcrread_out;
>>> struct tpm2_pcr_extend_in pcrextend_in;
>>> - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in get_tpm_pt_in;
>>> - struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_out get_tpm_pt_out;
>>> + struct tpm2_getcap_in getcap_in;
>>> + struct tpm2_getcap_out getcap_out;
>>> struct tpm2_get_random_in getrandom_in;
>>> struct tpm2_get_random_out getrandom_out;
>>> };
>>> @@ -435,16 +435,6 @@ int tpm2_get_random(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *out, size_t max)
>>> return total ? total : -EIO;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -#define TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE \
>>> - (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
>>> - sizeof(struct tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in))
>>> -
>>> -static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header = {
>>> - .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
>>> - .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_TPM_PT_IN_SIZE),
>>> - .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
>>> -};
>>> -
>>> /**
>>> * Append TPMS_AUTH_COMMAND to the buffer. The buffer must be allocated with
>>> * tpm_buf_alloc().
>>> @@ -750,35 +740,43 @@ out:
>>> return rc;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +#define TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE \
>>> + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + sizeof(struct tpm2_getcap_in))
>>> +
>>> +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_getcap_header = {
>>> + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
>>> + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GETCAP_IN_SIZE),
>>> + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> - * tpm2_get_tpm_pt() - get value of a TPM_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES type property
>>> - * @chip: TPM chip to use.
>>> - * @property_id: property ID.
>>> - * @value: output variable.
>>> + * tpm2_getcap_cmd() - execute a TPM2_GetCapability command
>>> + * @chip: TPM chip to use
>>> + * @cap_id: capability ID
>>> + * @property_id: property ID
>>> + * @value: value of the property
>>> * @desc: passed to tpm_transmit_cmd()
>>> *
>>> - * 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.
>>> + * Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd
>>> */
>>> -ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 property_id, u32 *value,
>>> - const char *desc)
>>> +ssize_t tpm2_getcap_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 cap_id, u32 property_id,
>>> + u32 *value, const char *desc)
>>
>> This function currently returns single value "u32 *value" as output data.
>>
>> Some calling function expect list of values from capabilities output.
>> For eg., get_active_banks() use TPM_CAP_PCRS capability to retrieve list of
>> active banks. And this capability returns array of pcr selections(which is a
>> struct representing each active PCR bank)
>>
>> I was thinking, can we define output parameter as struct of cap_id and union
>> of expected cap_data ?
>
> Unless you have major concerns about performance, which I think are not
> relevant here, calling this in a loop is perfectly adequate and a lot of
> simpler than having a generic version (with moreData handling and
> everything).
>
> I would rather see uses of struct cap_t to shrink than to expand. The
> same goes for other horrific unions that exist today in the driver.
I agree with the idea of not using union.
I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
capability.
I was thinking in place of having u32 *value returning actual value, can
we have it as void *value, where getcap_cmd will memcpy its out
parameter content after subcap_id to value, and then calling function
typecast to expected type and use it.
Please let me know if I am missing something in using this function.
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
> /Jarkko
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-17 17:42 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-17 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
> think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
> capability.
You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
for some workload.
Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
/Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-17 17:42 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-17 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
> think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
> capability.
You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
for some workload.
Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
/Jarkko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
2016-11-17 17:42 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
@ 2016-11-18 12:12 ` Nayna
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Nayna @ 2016-11-18 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On 11/17/2016 11:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>> I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
>> capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
>> think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
>> capability.
>
> You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
>
> If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
> to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
> requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
> moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
>
> That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
> property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
> for some workload.
>
> Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
Thanks Jarkko for explaining in detail.
If I understood correctly, the idea is to request for one property at a
time, and if we need multiple properties, then to request for each of
them in a loop. In case of TPM2_CAP_PCRS, property is always zero. This
is how I am calling getcap_cmd for TPM2_CAP_PCRS.
tpm2_getcap_cmd(chip, TPM2_CAP_PCRS, 0, &cap_data, "get active pcr
banks");
Output :
[ 17.081665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 2
[ 17.081666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_COMMANDS: more data 1
[ 17.081667] tpm: 2
[ 17.081668] tpm: tpm2_get_active_banks -------> cap is TPM2_CAP_PCRS
[ 17.171665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 5
[ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0 ---> more data is zero.
[ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0
[ 17.171667] tpm: count pcr banks is 2 ------> count of active pcr
banks information returned
more_data is always zero here, so am not sure how to handle more_data in
this case ?
Since property_id is always zero, I am not able to request for one
property at a time.
and response_buffer returns the details for both active banks.
This is the expected behavior defined in TCG 2.0 Part 3 Commands
Specification (Section 30.2.1):
"TPM_CAP_PCRS – Returns the current allocation of PCR in a
TPML_PCR_SELECTION. The property parameter shall be zero. The TPM will
always respond to this command with the full PCR allocation and moreData
will be NO."
Please let me know, if I am missing something.
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
> /Jarkko
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-18 12:12 ` Nayna
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Nayna @ 2016-11-18 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On 11/17/2016 11:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>> I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
>> capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
>> think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
>> capability.
>
> You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
>
> If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
> to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
> requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
> moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
>
> That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
> property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
> for some workload.
>
> Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
Thanks Jarkko for explaining in detail.
If I understood correctly, the idea is to request for one property at a
time, and if we need multiple properties, then to request for each of
them in a loop. In case of TPM2_CAP_PCRS, property is always zero. This
is how I am calling getcap_cmd for TPM2_CAP_PCRS.
tpm2_getcap_cmd(chip, TPM2_CAP_PCRS, 0, &cap_data, "get active pcr
banks");
Output :
[ 17.081665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 2
[ 17.081666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_COMMANDS: more data 1
[ 17.081667] tpm: 2
[ 17.081668] tpm: tpm2_get_active_banks -------> cap is TPM2_CAP_PCRS
[ 17.171665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 5
[ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0 ---> more data is zero.
[ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0
[ 17.171667] tpm: count pcr banks is 2 ------> count of active pcr
banks information returned
more_data is always zero here, so am not sure how to handle more_data in
this case ?
Since property_id is always zero, I am not able to request for one
property at a time.
and response_buffer returns the details for both active banks.
This is the expected behavior defined in TCG 2.0 Part 3 Commands
Specification (Section 30.2.1):
"TPM_CAP_PCRS – Returns the current allocation of PCR in a
TPML_PCR_SELECTION. The property parameter shall be zero. The TPM will
always respond to this command with the full PCR allocation and moreData
will be NO."
Please let me know, if I am missing something.
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
> /Jarkko
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
2016-11-18 12:12 ` Nayna
@ 2016-11-18 16:13 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-18 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 05:42:01PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>
> On 11/17/2016 11:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> >
> > > I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> > > capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
> > > think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
> > > capability.
> >
> > You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
> >
> > If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
> > to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
> > requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
> > moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
> >
> > That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
> > property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
> > for some workload.
> >
> > Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
>
> Thanks Jarkko for explaining in detail.
>
> If I understood correctly, the idea is to request for one property at a
> time, and if we need multiple properties, then to request for each of them
> in a loop. In case of TPM2_CAP_PCRS, property is always zero. This is how I
> am calling getcap_cmd for TPM2_CAP_PCRS.
>
> tpm2_getcap_cmd(chip, TPM2_CAP_PCRS, 0, &cap_data, "get active pcr banks");
>
> Output :
>
> [ 17.081665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 2
> [ 17.081666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_COMMANDS: more data 1
> [ 17.081667] tpm: 2
> [ 17.081668] tpm: tpm2_get_active_banks -------> cap is TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> [ 17.171665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 5
> [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0 ---> more data is zero.
> [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0
> [ 17.171667] tpm: count pcr banks is 2 ------> count of active pcr banks
> information returned
>
> more_data is always zero here, so am not sure how to handle more_data in
> this case ?
> Since property_id is always zero, I am not able to request for one property
> at a time.
> and response_buffer returns the details for both active banks.
>
> This is the expected behavior defined in TCG 2.0 Part 3 Commands
> Specification (Section 30.2.1):
>
> "TPM_CAP_PCRS – Returns the current allocation of PCR in a
> TPML_PCR_SELECTION. The property parameter shall be zero. The TPM will
> always respond to this command with the full PCR allocation and moreData
> will be NO."
>
> Please let me know, if I am missing something.
Thanks for pointing that. I think you got it right and I had some wrong
assumptions about 'moreData'.
Here's what I propose. Do a non-generic function just for getting CAP_PCRS.
You could call it tpm2_get_pcr_allocation() as you don't want or rather
need to handle all the bells and whistles in that TPM command.
It makes a lot more sense now than having one-size-for-all function.
/Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-18 16:13 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-18 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 05:42:01PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>
> On 11/17/2016 11:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> >
> > > I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> > > capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
> > > think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
> > > capability.
> >
> > You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
> >
> > If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
> > to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
> > requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
> > moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
> >
> > That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
> > property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
> > for some workload.
> >
> > Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
>
> Thanks Jarkko for explaining in detail.
>
> If I understood correctly, the idea is to request for one property at a
> time, and if we need multiple properties, then to request for each of them
> in a loop. In case of TPM2_CAP_PCRS, property is always zero. This is how I
> am calling getcap_cmd for TPM2_CAP_PCRS.
>
> tpm2_getcap_cmd(chip, TPM2_CAP_PCRS, 0, &cap_data, "get active pcr banks");
>
> Output :
>
> [ 17.081665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 2
> [ 17.081666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_COMMANDS: more data 1
> [ 17.081667] tpm: 2
> [ 17.081668] tpm: tpm2_get_active_banks -------> cap is TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> [ 17.171665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 5
> [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0 ---> more data is zero.
> [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0
> [ 17.171667] tpm: count pcr banks is 2 ------> count of active pcr banks
> information returned
>
> more_data is always zero here, so am not sure how to handle more_data in
> this case ?
> Since property_id is always zero, I am not able to request for one property
> at a time.
> and response_buffer returns the details for both active banks.
>
> This is the expected behavior defined in TCG 2.0 Part 3 Commands
> Specification (Section 30.2.1):
>
> "TPM_CAP_PCRS – Returns the current allocation of PCR in a
> TPML_PCR_SELECTION. The property parameter shall be zero. The TPM will
> always respond to this command with the full PCR allocation and moreData
> will be NO."
>
> Please let me know, if I am missing something.
Thanks for pointing that. I think you got it right and I had some wrong
assumptions about 'moreData'.
Here's what I propose. Do a non-generic function just for getting CAP_PCRS.
You could call it tpm2_get_pcr_allocation() as you don't want or rather
need to handle all the bells and whistles in that TPM command.
It makes a lot more sense now than having one-size-for-all function.
/Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-22 9:08 ` Nayna
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Nayna @ 2016-11-22 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On 11/18/2016 09:43 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 05:42:01PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/17/2016 11:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>>>
>>>> I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
>>>> capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
>>>> think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
>>>> capability.
>>>
>>> You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
>>>
>>> If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
>>> to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
>>> requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
>>> moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
>>>
>>> That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
>>> property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
>>> for some workload.
>>>
>>> Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
>>
>> Thanks Jarkko for explaining in detail.
>>
>> If I understood correctly, the idea is to request for one property at a
>> time, and if we need multiple properties, then to request for each of them
>> in a loop. In case of TPM2_CAP_PCRS, property is always zero. This is how I
>> am calling getcap_cmd for TPM2_CAP_PCRS.
>>
>> tpm2_getcap_cmd(chip, TPM2_CAP_PCRS, 0, &cap_data, "get active pcr banks");
>>
>> Output :
>>
>> [ 17.081665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 2
>> [ 17.081666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_COMMANDS: more data 1
>> [ 17.081667] tpm: 2
>> [ 17.081668] tpm: tpm2_get_active_banks -------> cap is TPM2_CAP_PCRS
>> [ 17.171665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 5
>> [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0 ---> more data is zero.
>> [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0
>> [ 17.171667] tpm: count pcr banks is 2 ------> count of active pcr banks
>> information returned
>>
>> more_data is always zero here, so am not sure how to handle more_data in
>> this case ?
>> Since property_id is always zero, I am not able to request for one property
>> at a time.
>> and response_buffer returns the details for both active banks.
>>
>> This is the expected behavior defined in TCG 2.0 Part 3 Commands
>> Specification (Section 30.2.1):
>>
>> "TPM_CAP_PCRS – Returns the current allocation of PCR in a
>> TPML_PCR_SELECTION. The property parameter shall be zero. The TPM will
>> always respond to this command with the full PCR allocation and moreData
>> will be NO."
>>
>> Please let me know, if I am missing something.
>
> Thanks for pointing that. I think you got it right and I had some wrong
> assumptions about 'moreData'.
>
> Here's what I propose. Do a non-generic function just for getting CAP_PCRS.
> You could call it tpm2_get_pcr_allocation() as you don't want or rather
> need to handle all the bells and whistles in that TPM command.
>
> It makes a lot more sense now than having one-size-for-all function.
Thanks Jarkko, Yeah, Sure, I will write it as different non-generic call.
Otherwise, the function works good.
Also, I am thinking now I can write "multi-bank support for extend" on
top of master branch itself. Any issues with that ?
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
> /Jarkko
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-22 9:08 ` Nayna
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Nayna @ 2016-11-22 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On 11/18/2016 09:43 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 05:42:01PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/17/2016 11:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>>>
>>>> I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
>>>> capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
>>>> think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
>>>> capability.
>>>
>>> You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
>>>
>>> If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
>>> to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
>>> requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
>>> moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
>>>
>>> That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
>>> property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
>>> for some workload.
>>>
>>> Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
>>
>> Thanks Jarkko for explaining in detail.
>>
>> If I understood correctly, the idea is to request for one property at a
>> time, and if we need multiple properties, then to request for each of them
>> in a loop. In case of TPM2_CAP_PCRS, property is always zero. This is how I
>> am calling getcap_cmd for TPM2_CAP_PCRS.
>>
>> tpm2_getcap_cmd(chip, TPM2_CAP_PCRS, 0, &cap_data, "get active pcr banks");
>>
>> Output :
>>
>> [ 17.081665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 2
>> [ 17.081666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_COMMANDS: more data 1
>> [ 17.081667] tpm: 2
>> [ 17.081668] tpm: tpm2_get_active_banks -------> cap is TPM2_CAP_PCRS
>> [ 17.171665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 5
>> [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0 ---> more data is zero.
>> [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0
>> [ 17.171667] tpm: count pcr banks is 2 ------> count of active pcr banks
>> information returned
>>
>> more_data is always zero here, so am not sure how to handle more_data in
>> this case ?
>> Since property_id is always zero, I am not able to request for one property
>> at a time.
>> and response_buffer returns the details for both active banks.
>>
>> This is the expected behavior defined in TCG 2.0 Part 3 Commands
>> Specification (Section 30.2.1):
>>
>> "TPM_CAP_PCRS – Returns the current allocation of PCR in a
>> TPML_PCR_SELECTION. The property parameter shall be zero. The TPM will
>> always respond to this command with the full PCR allocation and moreData
>> will be NO."
>>
>> Please let me know, if I am missing something.
>
> Thanks for pointing that. I think you got it right and I had some wrong
> assumptions about 'moreData'.
>
> Here's what I propose. Do a non-generic function just for getting CAP_PCRS.
> You could call it tpm2_get_pcr_allocation() as you don't want or rather
> need to handle all the bells and whistles in that TPM command.
>
> It makes a lot more sense now than having one-size-for-all function.
Thanks Jarkko, Yeah, Sure, I will write it as different non-generic call.
Otherwise, the function works good.
Also, I am thinking now I can write "multi-bank support for extend" on
top of master branch itself. Any issues with that ?
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
> /Jarkko
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tpmdd-devel mailing list
tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
2016-11-22 9:08 ` Nayna
@ 2016-11-22 11:03 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-22 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:38:21PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>
> On 11/18/2016 09:43 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 05:42:01PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/17/2016 11:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> > > > > capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
> > > > > think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
> > > > > capability.
> > > >
> > > > You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
> > > >
> > > > If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
> > > > to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
> > > > requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
> > > > moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
> > > >
> > > > That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
> > > > property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
> > > > for some workload.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
> > >
> > > Thanks Jarkko for explaining in detail.
> > >
> > > If I understood correctly, the idea is to request for one property at a
> > > time, and if we need multiple properties, then to request for each of them
> > > in a loop. In case of TPM2_CAP_PCRS, property is always zero. This is how I
> > > am calling getcap_cmd for TPM2_CAP_PCRS.
> > >
> > > tpm2_getcap_cmd(chip, TPM2_CAP_PCRS, 0, &cap_data, "get active pcr banks");
> > >
> > > Output :
> > >
> > > [ 17.081665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 2
> > > [ 17.081666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_COMMANDS: more data 1
> > > [ 17.081667] tpm: 2
> > > [ 17.081668] tpm: tpm2_get_active_banks -------> cap is TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> > > [ 17.171665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 5
> > > [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0 ---> more data is zero.
> > > [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0
> > > [ 17.171667] tpm: count pcr banks is 2 ------> count of active pcr banks
> > > information returned
> > >
> > > more_data is always zero here, so am not sure how to handle more_data in
> > > this case ?
> > > Since property_id is always zero, I am not able to request for one property
> > > at a time.
> > > and response_buffer returns the details for both active banks.
> > >
> > > This is the expected behavior defined in TCG 2.0 Part 3 Commands
> > > Specification (Section 30.2.1):
> > >
> > > "TPM_CAP_PCRS – Returns the current allocation of PCR in a
> > > TPML_PCR_SELECTION. The property parameter shall be zero. The TPM will
> > > always respond to this command with the full PCR allocation and moreData
> > > will be NO."
> > >
> > > Please let me know, if I am missing something.
> >
> > Thanks for pointing that. I think you got it right and I had some wrong
> > assumptions about 'moreData'.
> >
> > Here's what I propose. Do a non-generic function just for getting CAP_PCRS.
> > You could call it tpm2_get_pcr_allocation() as you don't want or rather
> > need to handle all the bells and whistles in that TPM command.
> >
> > It makes a lot more sense now than having one-size-for-all function.
>
> Thanks Jarkko, Yeah, Sure, I will write it as different non-generic call.
> Otherwise, the function works good.
> Also, I am thinking now I can write "multi-bank support for extend" on top
> of master branch itself. Any issues with that ?
I'm not sure what exactly I should or should not have an issue with.
I can check the patch but won't apply or test it before it is used for
something if that is what you are asking.
/Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to tpm2_getcap_cmd
@ 2016-11-22 11:03 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-11-22 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nayna; +Cc: Peter Huewe, moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER, open list
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:38:21PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>
> On 11/18/2016 09:43 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 05:42:01PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/17/2016 11:12 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> > > > > capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
> > > > > think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
> > > > > capability.
> > > >
> > > > You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
> > > >
> > > > If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
> > > > to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
> > > > requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
> > > > moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
> > > >
> > > > That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
> > > > property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
> > > > for some workload.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
> > >
> > > Thanks Jarkko for explaining in detail.
> > >
> > > If I understood correctly, the idea is to request for one property at a
> > > time, and if we need multiple properties, then to request for each of them
> > > in a loop. In case of TPM2_CAP_PCRS, property is always zero. This is how I
> > > am calling getcap_cmd for TPM2_CAP_PCRS.
> > >
> > > tpm2_getcap_cmd(chip, TPM2_CAP_PCRS, 0, &cap_data, "get active pcr banks");
> > >
> > > Output :
> > >
> > > [ 17.081665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 2
> > > [ 17.081666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_COMMANDS: more data 1
> > > [ 17.081667] tpm: 2
> > > [ 17.081668] tpm: tpm2_get_active_banks -------> cap is TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> > > [ 17.171665] tpm: cap id to receive value is 5
> > > [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0 ---> more data is zero.
> > > [ 17.171666] tpm: TPM2_CAP_PCRS: more data 0
> > > [ 17.171667] tpm: count pcr banks is 2 ------> count of active pcr banks
> > > information returned
> > >
> > > more_data is always zero here, so am not sure how to handle more_data in
> > > this case ?
> > > Since property_id is always zero, I am not able to request for one property
> > > at a time.
> > > and response_buffer returns the details for both active banks.
> > >
> > > This is the expected behavior defined in TCG 2.0 Part 3 Commands
> > > Specification (Section 30.2.1):
> > >
> > > "TPM_CAP_PCRS – Returns the current allocation of PCR in a
> > > TPML_PCR_SELECTION. The property parameter shall be zero. The TPM will
> > > always respond to this command with the full PCR allocation and moreData
> > > will be NO."
> > >
> > > Please let me know, if I am missing something.
> >
> > Thanks for pointing that. I think you got it right and I had some wrong
> > assumptions about 'moreData'.
> >
> > Here's what I propose. Do a non-generic function just for getting CAP_PCRS.
> > You could call it tpm2_get_pcr_allocation() as you don't want or rather
> > need to handle all the bells and whistles in that TPM command.
> >
> > It makes a lot more sense now than having one-size-for-all function.
>
> Thanks Jarkko, Yeah, Sure, I will write it as different non-generic call.
> Otherwise, the function works good.
> Also, I am thinking now I can write "multi-bank support for extend" on top
> of master branch itself. Any issues with that ?
I'm not sure what exactly I should or should not have an issue with.
I can check the patch but won't apply or test it before it is used for
something if that is what you are asking.
/Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread