[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CZA9CM3PDILC.82JMLUWMB6B7@seitikki>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 22:26:09 +0000
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Lino Sanfilippo" <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>, "Alexander Steffen"
<Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>, "Daniel P. Smith"
<dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>, "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>, "Sasha
Levin" <sashal@...nel.org>, <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Ross Philipson" <ross.philipson@...cle.com>, "Kanth Ghatraju"
<kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: protect against locality counter underflow
On Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 8:54 PM UTC, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> for (i = 0; i <= MAX_LOCALITY; i++)
> __tpm_tis_relinquish_locality(priv, i);
I'm pretty unfamiliar with Intel TXT so asking a dummy question:
if Intel TXT uses locality 2 I suppose we should not try to
relinquish it, or?
AFAIK, we don't have a symbol called MAX_LOCALITY.
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists