Re: [PATCH] tpm, tpm_tis: fix TPM 2.0 probing
From: Jarkko Sakkinen
Date: Thu Feb 12 2015 - 00:26:11 EST
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:47:01PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> 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
> >>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.
OK, perfect :)
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/