Re: FW: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command validation fails

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

On 11/26/2017 03:18 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:16:25AM -0800, flihp wrote:
>> The intent of this "mostly transparent" stuff is to convey that the RM
>> should be as transparent as possible while acknowledging that there are
>> some cases where it's not / can't be. I can't say why the original
>> author phrased it in this somewhat ambiguous way but I wouldn't call
>> this a fair interpretation. It's definitely one way to read it though.
>>
>> The case in question is the RM performing a function on behalf of the
>> TPM: command code validation. This is a perfectly valid thing to do in
>> the RM though the RM should aim to behave as the TPM would if the RM
>> takes any action (sending a TPM response buffer with the appropriate
>> response code).
>>
>> An additional detail is described in section 3.1 "Error Codes". There is
>> a mechanism to encode information about which layer in the stack
>> produced the response buffer. When the TPM gets a command with a command
>> code it doesn't support then this field will be '0' since '0' identifies
>> the TPM. If the RM is taking over this function it should set the field
>> to indicate as much.
> 
> Thanks for explaining this. I guess we could take this direction. I think
> by utilizing the field that you mentioned we could consider this. And it
> would be hard to imagine this change to cause anything serious (if
> anything at all) with backwards compatbility.
> 
> Javier, does you current version use this field? If not can you resend
> an update?
>

My current version wasn't setting the error level bits. I'll send a new
version that does this.

I'll also drop the RFC prefix and propose it as a formal patch since it
seems we are getting closer to an agreement and also add James as cc.
 
> /Jarkko
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement
Red Hat