Re: [PATCH] tpm, tpm_tis: fix TPM 2.0 probing

[Stefan Berger]

On 02/10/2015 07:50 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 07:16:32AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > On 02/09/2015 03:39 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:08:46AM +0100, Peter Hüwe wrote:
> > > > Am Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2015, 15:21:09 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen:
> > > > > If during transmission system error was returned, the logic was to
> > > > > incorrectly deduce that chip is a TPM 1.x chip. This patch fixes this
> > > > > issue. Also, this patch changes probing so that message tag is used as the
> > > > > measure for TPM 2.x, which should be much more stable.
> > > > Is it aware that some TPMs may respond with 0x00C1 as TAG for TPM1.2 commands?
> > > I guess none of the TPM 1.2 command answer with the tag 0x8002?
> >
> > FYI: pdf page 26 , section 6.1 explains the predictable return value for a
> > TPM1.2 command seen by a TPM2
> >
> > http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/files/static_page_files/8C68ADA8-1A4B-B294-D0FC06D3773F7DAA/TPM%20Rev%202.0%20Part%203%20-%20Commands%2001.16-code.pdf
> >
> > Following this:
> >
> > Sending a TPM1.2 command to a TPM2 should return a TPM1.2 header (tag =
> > 0xc4) and error code (TPM_BADTAG = 0x1e)
> >
> > Sending a TPM 2 command to a TPM 2 will give a TPM 2 tag in the header.
> > Sending a TPM 2 command to a TPM 1.2 will give a TPM 1.2 tag in the header
> > and an error code.
> Thank you for the information. Do you think that for some reason
> tpm2_probe() shoould instead check that value is not this error
> instead of checking that tag is 0x80002?

Following your path, you are checking for TPM2_ST_NO_SESSION (0x8001), 
which looks correct to me. A TPM1.2 would never send this tag back.

    Stefan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/