On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 09:20:14AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 05/10/2017 08:47 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:49:05AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > On 05/08/2017 07:43 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:03:18PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > On 05/04/2017 02:40 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 07:14:27AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > > On 05/04/2017 05:17 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 07:40:48PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 05/03/2017 06:37 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:02:18AM -0400, Stefan Berger > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Add an ioctl to request that the locality be prepended to > > > > > > > > > > > every TPM > > > > > > > > > > > command. > > > > > > > > > > Don't really understand this change. Why locality is > > > > > > > > > > prenpended? > > > > > > > > > Commands can be executed under locality 0-3 and for some > > > > > > > > > commands it is > > > > > > > > > important to know which locality a user may have chosen. How > > > > > > > > > else should we > > > > > > > > > convey that locality to the TPM emulator ? > > > > > > > > Why this is not in the commit message? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More scalable way to do this would be to have a set of vtpm > > > > > > > > proxy > > > > > > > > commands. There could be a command for requesting and releasing > > > > > > > > locality. That would be more clean. > > > > > > > I would think that if someone wanted to use locality it's the > > > > > > > client using > > > > > > > /dev/tpm(rm)0 calling an ioctl or so and the vtpm proxy then > > > > > > > merely passing > > > > > > > that locality to the backend (TPM emulator). I suppose the > > > > > > > intention is to > > > > > > > support something like that following the addition of the new > > > > > > > functions > > > > > > > request_locality and release_locality? > > > > > > What if we later on want to pass something else than locality to the > > > > > > backend? How that will work out? > > > > > 'push' more data in front. 'pop' off by recipient. We could wrap the > > > > > command > > > > > in some form. > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > I would find having a set of special commands cleaner. Prepending sounds > > > > like a quick hack to me, not really something that should exist in the > > > > mainline. > > > Along the lines of this here? > > > > > > uint32_2 command > > > uint32_2 totlength > > > uint8_t locality > > > uint8_t buffer[] <- the actual TPM command > > > > > > > > > With a command code like VTPM_PROXY_CMD_TPM_CMD = 1. > > > > > > Stefan > > That would break binary compability. > > That's why I am adding that additional flag that allows a client to choose > whether it wants the TPM command wrapped (or locality prepended) so that it > knows what to expect from the driver. I don't think that breaks > compatibility.
I think having TPM command codes for control messages would be a better idea and it is trivial to filter them so that client cannot use those commands. /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
