linux-kernel - Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter

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]

Message-ID: <20151203060042.GB10359@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2015 08:00:42 +0200
From:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:	Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@...fujitsu.com>,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module
 parameter

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:11:55PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:27:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Okay, I didn't find the is_fifo before, so that make sense
> 
> But this:
> 
> > 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?)
> 
> Is then still a problem. On Martin's system the MSFT0101 device does
> not have a struct resource attached to it. Does any system, or is this
> just dead code?
> 
> Should the control_area_pa be used?

I guess it'd be more realiable. In my NUC the current fix works and the
people who tested it. If you supply me a fix that changes it to use that
I can test it and this will give also coverage to the people who tested
my original fix.

/Jarkko
--
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/