[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CZAC8SNXYDU6.2GHMH4MJAOA9C@seitikki>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:42:13 +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 11:26 PM UTC, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>
>
> 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.
NP
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists