[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9da1855b-eca2-4c11-a69d-e01494c985d1@kunbus.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:26:08 +0100
From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
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 20.02.24 23:31, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> ATTENTION: This e-mail is from an external sender. Please check attachments and links before opening e.g. with mouseover.
>
>
> On Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 10:26 PM UTC, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> 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.
>
> OK it was called TPM_MAX_LOCALITY :-) I had the patch set applied
> in one branch but looked up with wrong symbol name.
>
Sorry for the confusion. The code was just meant to sketch a solution, it was
written out of my head and I just remembered that Daniels patch set introduced
some define for the max number of the localities. I did not look up the correct
name though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists