linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: override reported C and D timeouts for Atmel 3203

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: <20170112201902.GA15687@obsidianresearch.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:19:02 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:     "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
Cc:     tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: override reported C and D timeouts for Atmel
 3203

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:09:33PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:

> Hmm, I dug in history of tpm-interface.c and the code had actually rejected
> zero timeouts until commit 8e54caf407b98e (this is the commit that
> introduced the Atmel 3204 workaround) and let default timeout values remain
> instead (it looks like they were exactly like these in above override at
> that time).

The model changed around then.. Just printing if the timeout is 0 is
enough for now..

> Did Atmel 3204 report wrong but non-zero timeouts?

Yes, I think it may have..

Jason