On 05/04/2017 11:34 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:56:25AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: >> Implement VTPM_PROXY_IOC_GET_SUPT_FLAGS ioctl to get the bitmask >> of flags that the vtpm_proxy driver supports in the >> VTPM_PROXY_IOC_NEW_DEV ioctl. This helps user space in deciding >> which flags to set in that ioctl. > you might be better off just having a VTPM_PROXY_IO_ENABLE_FEATURE > .feature = LOCALITY
Do you have an example driver that shows how to do this ? Can user space query that feature? > > If that fails then the feature is not supported, no real need for the > query in that case. > > Not sure about Jarkko's point on request/release locality.. Is there a > scenario where the emulator should fail the request locality? We could filter localities 5 and higher on the level of the driver (patch 2/3) since basically there are only 5 localities (0-4) in any TPM interface today. The typical hardware locality 4 would be filtered by the emulator per policy passed via command line, but I would allow it on the level of this driver. An error message would be returned for any command executed in that locality, unless the 'policy' allows it. Localities 0-3 should just be selectable. The TPM TIS (in the hardware) implements some complicated scheme when it comes to allowing the selection of a locality and I would say we need none of that but just tell the vTPM proxy driver the locality (patch 2/3) in which the next command will be executed. > > Jason > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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