linux-kernel - Re: [Patch V8 1/3] spi: Add TPM HW flow flag

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:34:31 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To:     Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org, peterhuewe@....de,
        jgg@...pe.ca, jarkko@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        skomatineni@...dia.com, ldewangan@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [Patch V8 1/3] spi: Add TPM HW flow flag

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 09:48:02AM +0530, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote:
> TPM specification [1] defines flow control over SPI. Client device can
> insert a wait state on MISO when address is transmitted by controller
> on MOSI. Detecting the wait state in software is only possible for
> full duplex controllers. For controllers that support only half-
> duplex, the wait state detection needs to be implemented in hardware.
> 
> Add a flag SPI_TPM_HW_FLOW for TPM device to set when software flow
> control is not possible and hardware flow control is expected from
> SPI controller.
> 
> Reference:
> [1] https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/pc-client-work-group-
> pc-client-specific-tpm-interface-specification-tis/
> 

Minor thing, but should this reference the newer specification [1]?

[1] https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/pc-client-platform-tpm-profile-ptp-specification/


Regards,
Jerry

> Signed-off-by: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/spi/spi.h | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/spi/spi.h b/include/linux/spi/spi.h
> index 4fa26b9a3572..b9e49ed42955 100644
> --- a/include/linux/spi/spi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/spi/spi.h
> @@ -184,8 +184,18 @@ struct spi_device {
>  	u8			chip_select;
>  	u8			bits_per_word;
>  	bool			rt;
> -#define SPI_NO_TX	BIT(31)		/* No transmit wire */
> -#define SPI_NO_RX	BIT(30)		/* No receive wire */
> +#define SPI_NO_TX		BIT(31)		/* No transmit wire */
> +#define SPI_NO_RX		BIT(30)		/* No receive wire */
> +	/*
> +	 * TPM specification defines flow control over SPI. Client device
> +	 * can insert a wait state on MISO when address is transmitted by
> +	 * controller on MOSI. Detecting the wait state in software is only
> +	 * possible for full duplex controllers. For controllers that support
> +	 * only half-duplex, the wait state detection needs to be implemented
> +	 * in hardware. TPM devices would set this flag when hardware flow
> +	 * control is expected from SPI controller.
> +	 */
> +#define SPI_TPM_HW_FLOW		BIT(29)		/* TPM HW flow control */
>  	/*
>  	 * All bits defined above should be covered by SPI_MODE_KERNEL_MASK.
>  	 * The SPI_MODE_KERNEL_MASK has the SPI_MODE_USER_MASK counterpart,
> @@ -195,7 +205,7 @@ struct spi_device {
>  	 * These bits must not overlap. A static assert check should make sure of that.
>  	 * If adding extra bits, make sure to decrease the bit index below as well.
>  	 */
> -#define SPI_MODE_KERNEL_MASK	(~(BIT(30) - 1))
> +#define SPI_MODE_KERNEL_MASK	(~(BIT(29) - 1))
>  	u32			mode;
>  	int			irq;
>  	void			*controller_state;
> -- 
> 2.17.1
>