Jonathan McCune wrote on 2012-04-11: > Hello list, > > In both tboot-1.7.0 and the latest revision in the mercurial repo > (299:950fec11ef90, dated 1/15/2012): > > tboot-1.7.0 $ patch --dry-run -p1 < test-patches/tpm-test.patch > patching file tboot/common/tpm.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 2121 with fuzz 1 > (offset 418 lines). > patching file tboot/include/tpm.h > Hunk #1 succeeded at 272 with fuzz 2 (offset 15 lines). > patching file tboot/txt/txt.c > Hunk #1 FAILED at 475. > Hunk #2 succeeded at 740 with fuzz 2 (offset 162 lines). > 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file tboot/txt/txt.c.rej > > Changing the fuzz factor with -F3 causes the patch to "apply", but it's > faulty. > The call to tpm_unit_test_before_senter() ends up in the wrong place. > > $ patch --dry-run -p1 -F3 < test-patches/tpm-test.patch > > I found putting the call to tpm_unit_test_before_senter() at the end > of the function txt_prepare_cpu() in tboot/txt/txt.c seems reasonable. > > If desired I could prepare and post a proper patch, but it seems a > very trivial edit.
Jon, Thanks for raising this issue. The better place to put the call to tpm_unit_test_before_senter() should be in tboot/common/tboot.c:begin_lauch(), and before "if ( !is_tpm_ready(0) )". The fix will be made soon. Jimmy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev _______________________________________________ tboot-devel mailing list tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tboot-devel
