Re: [PATCH v4] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 09:52:11PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:25:57AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > 
> > Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2017-03-24 10:10 GMT:
> > 
> > > This commit adds support for requesting and relinquishing locality 0 in
> > > tpm_crb for the course of command transmission.
> > >
> > > In order to achieve this, two new callbacks are added to struct
> > > tpm_class_ops:
> > >
> > > - request_locality
> > > - relinquish_locality
> > >
> > > With CRB interface you first set either requestAccess or relinquish bit
> > > from TPM_LOC_CTRL_x register and then wait for locAssigned and
> > > tpmRegValidSts bits to be set in the TPM_LOC_STATE_x register.
> > >
> > > The reason why were are doing this is to make sure that the driver
> > > will work properly with Intel TXT that uses locality 2. There's no
> > > explicit guarantee that it would relinquish this locality. In more
> > > general sense this commit enables tpm_crb to be a well behaving
> > > citizen in a multi locality environment.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Tested on kabylake system that was hitting issues with earlier
> > iteration. Still don't have platform to test it dealing with
> > multi-locality enviroment.
> 
> I believe Jimmy (Gang Wei) has done such testing. Jimmy can you confirm
> and possibly do re-test (there's a locality branch in my tree to ease
> the testing) so that we could land this one?
> 
> /Jarkko

I applied this to my master and next branches.

/Jarkko