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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:27:27 -0700 From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> Cc: tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@...fujitsu.com>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:58:26AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > I went through the patches and didn't see anything that would shock me > enough not to apply the patches in the current if they also work when > tested *but* are these release critical for Linux v4.4? Jarkko, Can you explain how commit 399235dc6e95400a1322a9999e92073bc572f0c8 Author: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> Date: Tue Sep 29 00:32:19 2015 +0300 tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0 Is supposed to work? I get the jist of the idea, but I'm not seeing how it can work reliably.. The idea is to pass off TPM2_START_FIFO to tpm_tis? I'm guessing that if the driver probe order is tpm_crb,tpm_tis then things work because tpm_crb will claim the device first? Otherwise tpm_tis claims these things unconditionally? If the probe order is reversed things become broken? What is the address tpm_tis should be using? I see two things, it either uses the x86 default address or it expects the ACPI to have a MEM resource. AFAIK ACPI should never rely on hard wired addresses, so I removed that code in this series. Perhaps tpm_tis should be using control_area_pa ? Will ACPI ever present a struct resource? (if yes, why isn't tpm_crb using one?) There is also something wrong with the endianness in the acpi stuff. I don't see endianness conversions in other acpi places, so I wonder if the ones in tpm_crb are correct. If they are correct then the struct needs le/be notations and there are some missing conversions. Jason -- 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