linux-kernel - RE: [tpmdd-devel] Linux 3.1-rc9

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, 11 Oct 2011 07:09:31 +0000
From:	<Peter.Huewe@...ineon.com>
To:	<a.miskiewicz@...il.com>, <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	<m.selhorst@...rix.com>, <tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [tpmdd-devel] Linux 3.1-rc9

-----Original Message-----
From: Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz [mailto:a.miskiewicz@...il.com]
>> I guess the BIOS seems not to be initializing the TPM correctly. Any
>> chance you can get a hold of a BIOS update for your machine?

> Then I looked into bios options on this thinkpad t400 and there are 3 possible
> TPM settings: Enabled, Invisible, Disabled.

> Invisible is - visible but not working - according to bios help. No idea why
> such option exists but I had it enabled.

> I guess there is some way to make "Invisible" mode properly handled in Linux,
> too.

Invisible here probably means that the bios simply does not send a TPM_Startup which is needed to get the TPM running.
(and maybe it even let's physical presence untouched too).
If the driver would send a TPM_Startup(STATE) (which usually should not cause any problems, since if you send it twice the second one simply gets 'ignored' with a "invalid postinit" return code)
the tpm would probably work in the invisible case too.

Thanks,
Peter