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: <C5A28EF7B98F574C85C70238C8E9ECC04E682BF16C@ABGEX74E.FSC.NET>
Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:39:14 +0100
From:	"Wilck, Martin" <martin.wilck@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
CC:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-K??nig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module
 parameter




On Do, 2015-12-03 at 10:00 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:30:30AM +0100, Wilck, Martin wrote:
> > On Mi, 2015-12-02 at 12:11 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > 
> > > > 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?
> > 
> > ACPI defines a mem resource corresponding to the standard TIS memory
> > area on my system, and it used to be detected fine with Jarkko's patch.
> > Somehow your latest changes broke it, not sure why.
> 
> Are you certain? Based on what you sent me, that output is only
> possible if there is no mem resource.

Yes, I am certain. I checked the DSDT, and I put a debug statement right
after the resource detection in tpm_tis.

Martin


> With the prior arrangement no mem resource means the x86 default
> address is used, which is the only way I can see how your system
> works.



> 
> Jason