linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] tpm: add driver for cr50 on SPI

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: <1bb8d417-3199-7aff-ad60-b25464502cb3@infineon.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:53:00 +0200
From:   Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
CC:     Andrey Pronin <apronin@...omium.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Duncan Laurie <dlaurie@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] tpm: add driver for cr50 on SPI

On 18.07.2019 20:11, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Alexander Steffen (2019-07-18 09:47:22)
>> On 17.07.2019 23:38, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> Quoting Stephen Boyd (2019-07-17 12:57:34)
>>>> Quoting Alexander Steffen (2019-07-17 05:00:06)
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't the code be shared more explicitly, e.g. by cr50_spi wrapping
>>>>> tpm_tis_spi, so that it can intercept the calls, execute the additional
>>>>> actions (like waking up the device), but then let tpm_tis_spi do the
>>>>> common work?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suppose the read{16,32} and write32 functions could be reused. I'm not
>>>> sure how great it will be if we combine these two drivers, but I can
>>>> give it a try today and see how it looks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the patch. I haven't tested it besides compile testing.
> 
> The code seems to work but I haven't done any extensive testing besides
> making sure that the TPM responds to pcr reads and some commands like
> reading random numbers.
> 
>>
>> Thanks for providing this. Makes it much easier to see what the actual
>> differences between the devices are.
>>
>> Do we have a general policy on how to support devices that are very
>> similar but need special handling in some places? Not duplicating the
>> whole driver just to change a few things definitely seems like an
>> improvement (and has already been done in the past, as with
>> TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND). But should all the code just be added to
>> tpm_tis_spi.c? Or is there some way to keep a clearer separation,
>> especially when (in the future) we have multiple devices that all have
>> their own set of deviations from the spec?
>>
> 
> If you have any ideas on how to do it please let me know. At this point,
> I'd prefer if the maintainers could provide direction on what they want.

Sure, I'd expect Jarkko will say something once he's back from vacation.

Alexander