On 23.02.24 02:56, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>>
>> Will the TPM TIS CORE ever (have to) request another locality than 0? Maybe
>> the best would
>> be to hardcode TPM_ACCESS(0) and get rid of all the locality parameters that
>> are
>> passed from one function to another.
>> But this is rather code optimization and not really required to fix the
>> reported bug.
>
> Actually, doing so will break the TPM API. The function
> tpm_tis_request_locality() is registered as the locality handler,
> int (*request_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc), in the tis
> instance of struct tpm_class_ops{}. This is the API used by the Secure
> Launch series to open Locality2 for the measurements it must record.
>
I dont understand this. How do you use locality 2 with the current mainline
API? Do you adjust the mainline code to use locality 2 instead of 0? This would
at least explain how you ran into the underflow issue which from
the source code seems to be impossible when using locality 0. But then I wonder
why
this has not been made clear in this discussion. And then we are talking
about fixing a bug that does not even exist in the upstream code.
BR,
Lino
