| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <74A44E99E3274B4CB570415926B37D4413DE67@MUCSE501.eu.infineon.com> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:56:12 +0000 From: <Peter.Huewe@...ineon.com> To: <dlaurie@...omium.org>, <key@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: <semenzato@...omium.org>, <tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] TPM: Retry SaveState command in suspend path Hi > The TPM is too busy to respond to the command immediately, but the > command could be resubmitted at a later time. The TPM MAY return > TPM_RETRY for any command at any time. > It can take several seconds before the TPM will respond again. I measured a typical time between 3 and 4 seconds and the timeout is set at a safe 5 seconds. > I tested a variety of TPMs from Infineon, Nuvoton, Atmel, and STMicro but was only able to reproduce this with LPC and I2C TPMs from Infineon. Yes, our TPMs respond with TPM_RETRY if the time between two TPM_SaveState is too short to prevent wear leveling. If I remember correctly the internal timer is set to 5sec. As you've already said this is compliant with the TCG specification. Nevertheless, the patch looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Peter Huewe <peter.huewe@...ineon.com> Acked-by: Peter Huewe <peter.huewe@...ineon.com> Thanks, Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists