[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161117174241.wvyd7g5lj4ibfnry@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:42:41 -0800
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to
tpm2_getcap_cmd
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
> think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
> capability.
You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.
If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.
That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
for some workload.
Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists