Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n>

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 08:14:55AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 16:09 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 01:36:28PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 23:04 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01:07PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:30:55PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:48:12AM -0800, James Bottomley
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 09:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now on top
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > branch that contains Stefan's latest patch (min body
> > > > > > > > > length
> > > > > > > > > check) 
> > > > > > > > > that I've reviewed and tested. It also contains your
> > > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > /dev/tpms patch.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are such that
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > have 
> > > > > > > > > fairly good consensus, don't we? If so, can I add your
> > > > > > > > > reviewed-by 
> > > > > > > > > and tested-by to my commits and vice versa?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > We're still failing my test_transients.  This is the full
> > > > > > > > python of 
> > > > > > > > the test case:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >     def test_transients(self):
> > > > > > > >         k = self.open_transients()
> > > > > > > >         self.c.flush_context(k[0])
> > > > > > > >         self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1], None, pwd1)
> > > > > > > >         ...
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with
> > > > > > > > TPM_RC_VALUE.
> > > > > > > >   It's 
> > > > > > > > the same problem Ken complained about: TPM2_FlushContext
> > > > > > > > doesn't have 
> > > > > > > > a declared handle area so we don't translate the handle
> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > down.  We have to fix this either by intercepting the
> > > > > > > > flush
> > > > > > > > and 
> > > > > > > > manually translating the context, or by being dangerously
> > > > > > > > clever and 
> > > > > > > > marking flush as a command which takes one handle.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This is what the dangerously clever fix looks like.  With
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > few other changes, my smoke tests now pass.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > James
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't want to be clever here. I will rather intercept the
> > > > > > body
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > try to keep the core code simple and easy to understand.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It came out quite clean actually.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I just encapsulated handle mapping and have this in the
> > > > > beginning
> > > > > of
> > > > > tpm2_map_command:
> > > > > 
> > > > > if (cc == TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT)
> > > > > 	return tpm2_map_to_phandle(space,
> > > > > &cmd[TPM_HEADER_SIZE]);
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think this documents better what is actually going on than
> > > > > tinkering
> > > > > cc_attr_tbl.
> > > > > 
> > > > > /Jarkko
> > > > 
> > > > Actually what you suggested is much better idea because it will
> > > > also
> > > > take care of validation.
> > > 
> > > Yes, that's why it's clever ... I'm just always wary of clever code
> > > because of the Kernighan principle.
> > > 
> > > >  I'm still going to keep tpm2_map_to_phandle because it makes the
> > > > code flow a lot cleaner and probably sessions have to anyway make
> > > > it
> > > > even more complicated.
> > > 
> > > OK, there's one more thing that seems to be causing problems: when
> > > tpm2_save_context fails because the handle no longer exists (like
> > > it's
> > > been flushed) it returns TPM_RC_REFERENCE_H0 not TPM_RC_HANDLE (the
> > > session code does seem to return TPM_RC_HANDLE under some
> > > circumstances).
> > > 
> > > James
> > 
> > What is your way for reproducing this issue? Just want to add
> > a test case for my smoke test suite so that I can verify that
> > the issue is fixed once I've fixed it.
> 
> 
> It's the test_handle_clearing test in tpm2_sessions_smoke.py.  It's
> probably easier if I publish the current state of my mods to your tpm2
> -scripts, so here they are:
> 
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jejb/tpm2-scripts.git/

Thanks. I think you can use also this list to send updates to my
test scripts in future.

> James

/Jarkko