Re: [PATCH] tpm: consolidate the TPM startup code

[Stefan Berger]

On 06/20/2017 04:55 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:31:52PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 08:13:34PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Consolidated all the "manual" TPM startup code to a single function
> > > in order to make code flows a bit cleaner and migrate to tpm_buf.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >   drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > >   drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h           |  6 +---
> > >   drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c      | 32 +------------------
> > >   3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
> > Makes sense to me
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > index d2b4df6d9894..fbef47d8bd06 100644
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > @@ -540,6 +540,47 @@ ssize_t tpm_transmit_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct tpm_space *space,
> > >   }
> > >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_transmit_cmd);
> > >   
> > > +#define TPM_ORD_STARTUP 153
> > > +#define TPM_ST_CLEAR 1
> > We should really have a tpm1.h and tpm2.h that has all these various
> > constants and things instead of open coding them randomly all over..
> >
> > Jason
> I agree.
>
> Is this patch acceptable to be applied?
>
> Stefan, can you peer test this with a TPM emulator? For convenient testing
> I created 'readpubek' branch that includes also my readpubek bug fixes.
> Seeing that the module loads and you can output pubek sysfs attribute is
> sufficient for seeing that all the three patches work.

Doesn't work. The startup_type is be16, but you are appending a u32 now 
for both TPM1.2 and TPM2.

+               tpm_buf_append_u32(&buf, TPM_ST_CLEAR);


-struct tpm_startup_in {
-       __be16  startup_type;
-} __packed;
-

struct tpm2_startup_in can probably be removed as well?

  Stefan

> /Jarkko