linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm/tpm_crb: Access locality for non-ACPI and non-SMC start method

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:25:26 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:     Jiandi An <anjiandi@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        peterhuewe@....de, tpmdd@...horst.net,
        tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm/tpm_crb: Access locality for non-ACPI and non-SMC
 start method

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 04:28:54PM -0500, Jiandi An wrote:

> I'm sorry perhaps I didn't fully understand the workaround specific to Intel
> PPT.  In previous patch thread, you mentioned the following where
> a platform could report to require start method 2 (ACPI start) which is
> sm = ACPI_TPM2_START_METHOD, and actually requires start method 8, which
> is sm = ACPI_TPM2_COMMAND_BUFFER_WITH_START_METHOD.

I'm also not sure.

To be clear, my desire to see a test that triggers only for the Intel
chips with the problem, and is written in a way that matches exactly
the ACPI data from the broken chip - so things like !CRB are not what
I want to see..

In that light the example I gave was probably not well thought out,
but I also do not understand the exact conditions needed for the Intel
work around either. Hopefully Jarkko can clarify.

Jason