On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 10:15:56PM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote:
> As per the TCG 2.0 spec, the extend operation should be done to
> all active PCR banks. However, current TPM 2.0 support doesn't
> have the capability implemented to get active PCR banks.
>
> This patch implements the TPM 2.0 capability TPM_CAP_PCRS to
> retrieve active PCR banks from the TPM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <na...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
I'll try to give some guidelines how to get this done.
> +#define TPM2_GET_CAPABILITY_IN_SIZE \
> + (sizeof(struct tpm_input_header) + \
> + sizeof(struct tpm2_get_cap_in))
> +
> +static const struct tpm_input_header tpm2_get_capability_header = {
> + .tag = cpu_to_be16(TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS),
> + .length = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_GET_CAPABILITY_IN_SIZE),
> + .ordinal = cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CC_GET_CAPABILITY)
> +};
> +
> +int tpm2_get_capability(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct tpm2_get_cap_in
> *cap_in,
> + struct tpm2_get_cap_out *cap_out)
> +{
> +
> + struct tpm2_cmd cmd;
> + int rc;
> + u32 cap_id;
> +
> + cmd.header.in = tpm2_get_capability_header;
> + cmd.params.get_cap_in.cap_id = cpu_to_be32(cap_in->cap_id);
> + cmd.params.get_cap_in.property_id = cpu_to_be32(cap_in->property_id);
> + cmd.params.get_cap_in.property_cnt = cpu_to_be32(cap_in->property_cnt);
> +
> + rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, (const char *) &cmd, sizeof(cmd), 0,
> + "attempting get capability operation");
> + if (rc < 0)
> + return rc;
> + cap_id = be32_to_cpu(cmd.params.get_cap_out.cap_data.cap_id);
> +
> + switch (cap_id) {
> + case TPM2_CAP_PCRS:
> + memcpy(&cap_out->cap_data, &cmd.params.get_cap_out.cap_data,
> + sizeof(cmd.params.get_cap_out.cap_data));
> + break;
> + default:
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> +
> + return rc;
I think it would be better to start with a function that grabs one
attribute and call that in a loop. Performance is not an issue here and
you are storing the result. Simpler is really better in this case.
Rather refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to be more generic and call that in a
loop. I don't think the performance is really an issue here and you
anyway store the result to struct tpm_chip. Also, your implementation is
not generic (more_data is not taken into account).
I just sent patches that I've written for the access broker [1]. I think
it'd be better if you would use them in your patch set.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/9/49
/Jarkko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
tpmdd-devel mailing list
tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
