On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 08:14:55AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 16:09 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 01:36:28PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 23:04 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01:07PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:30:55PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:48:12AM -0800, James Bottomley > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 09:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now on top > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > master > > > > > > > > > branch that contains Stefan's latest patch (min body > > > > > > > > > length > > > > > > > > > check) > > > > > > > > > that I've reviewed and tested. It also contains your > > > > > > > > > updated > > > > > > > > > /dev/tpms patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are such that > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > fairly good consensus, don't we? If so, can I add your > > > > > > > > > reviewed-by > > > > > > > > > and tested-by to my commits and vice versa? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're still failing my test_transients. This is the full > > > > > > > > python of > > > > > > > > the test case: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > def test_transients(self): > > > > > > > > k = self.open_transients() > > > > > > > > self.c.flush_context(k[0]) > > > > > > > > self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1], None, pwd1) > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with > > > > > > > > TPM_RC_VALUE. > > > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > the same problem Ken complained about: TPM2_FlushContext > > > > > > > > doesn't have > > > > > > > > a declared handle area so we don't translate the handle > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > sent > > > > > > > > down. We have to fix this either by intercepting the > > > > > > > > flush > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > manually translating the context, or by being dangerously > > > > > > > > clever and > > > > > > > > marking flush as a command which takes one handle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what the dangerously clever fix looks like. With > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > and a > > > > > > > few other changes, my smoke tests now pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to be clever here. I will rather intercept the > > > > > > body > > > > > > and > > > > > > try to keep the core code simple and easy to understand. > > > > > > > > > > It came out quite clean actually. > > > > > > > > > > I just encapsulated handle mapping and have this in the > > > > > beginning > > > > > of > > > > > tpm2_map_command: > > > > > > > > > > if (cc == TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT) > > > > > return tpm2_map_to_phandle(space, > > > > > &cmd[TPM_HEADER_SIZE]); > > > > > > > > > > I think this documents better what is actually going on than > > > > > tinkering > > > > > cc_attr_tbl. > > > > > > > > > > /Jarkko > > > > > > > > Actually what you suggested is much better idea because it will > > > > also > > > > take care of validation. > > > > > > Yes, that's why it's clever ... I'm just always wary of clever code > > > because of the Kernighan principle. > > > > > > > I'm still going to keep tpm2_map_to_phandle because it makes the > > > > code flow a lot cleaner and probably sessions have to anyway make > > > > it > > > > even more complicated. > > > > > > OK, there's one more thing that seems to be causing problems: when > > > tpm2_save_context fails because the handle no longer exists (like > > > it's > > > been flushed) it returns TPM_RC_REFERENCE_H0 not TPM_RC_HANDLE (the > > > session code does seem to return TPM_RC_HANDLE under some > > > circumstances). > > > > > > James > > > > What is your way for reproducing this issue? Just want to add > > a test case for my smoke test suite so that I can verify that > > the issue is fixed once I've fixed it. > > > It's the test_handle_clearing test in tpm2_sessions_smoke.py. It's > probably easier if I publish the current state of my mods to your tpm2 > -scripts, so here they are: > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jejb/tpm2-scripts.git/
Thanks. I think you can use also this list to send updates to my test scripts in future. > James /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